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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/15/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 14 are independent claims.
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(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.
Claim Interpretation
The claims 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.
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.
Regarding claim 1 and 10, the limitation “in response to determining…for a first component and/or a second component of an electronic device”, is unclear as how and why the first component is needed as the first component is not related to the other limitations of the claim . Claims 2-9, and 11 – 13 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, and 10 respectively.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the second component" and “the target update data” in line 18, and the limitation “the update information” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. As this is an independent claim there is no prior reference to the aforementioned limitations. Claims 15-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the first component" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim there is no prior reference to the aforementioned limitations of a first component in independent claim 14. Claim 16 is also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of claim 15.
Claim limitation “data acquisition unit” and “component update unit” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not clearly define the corresponding structure of these units, at most in the specification it repeats the same functions of these units only. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 11-13 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 10.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-13 , 15-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: The claims 1, 10, are directed to a method and device respectively Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitation of claims 1 and 10 of “in response to determining that update information exists for a first component and/or a second component of an electronic device”, as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can the observe and record the existence of an available software firmware update using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2
In Claim 1 and 10, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the element of “obtaining target update data…of the electronic device” can be classified as mere insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity. (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) The act of downloading an update for a computer component does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation of “updating the second component based on the target update data” in response to the update information, can be classified as mere instructions to apply an exception. The routine action of initiating the installation of a software update merely invokes a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. (see MPEP §2106.05(d))
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular in claim 9, “setting the at least one candidate function in the second component to an activate state based on the functional state configuration “ is a process of enabling and disabling software functions which is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art of computers. Therefore, the addition of version comparison is insignificant extra-solution activity. (see MPEP §2106.05(g))
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1,10 , not only recite a judicial exception but that the
claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B.
The elements of Claim 1,10, alone or in combination with elements of their dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The routine and conventional actives of obtaining a component update and installing that update in claims 1,10 when appended to the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In claim 2, “determining that correspondence information between the first component and the second component of the electronic device does not match;” and,” determining that current information of the first (or second) component of the electronic device does not match corresponding historical information,” are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art of computers. (see MPEP §2106.05(g))
Regarding the additional elements of obtaining and updating, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 1: Claims 6, and 19 are directed to a method and non-transitory medium respectively. Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitation in claim 6 and 19 of “determining at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on flag bit information in the first component” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can the observe and record the target function in the flag bit data using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the element of “obtaining the target update data for setting the target function” can be classified as mere insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity. (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) The act of downloading target data for a computer component does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the flag bit information being used to record at least one function that the second component can have,” and “ the target function belonging to the function recorded in the flag bit information;” can be classified Field of Use and Technological Environment, as restricting the type of information in the flag bit data does not provide any meaningful limits on the claim. (see MPEP §2106.05(h))
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 6 and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the
claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the additional of “obtaining the target update data for setting the target function” can be classified as mere insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements of “the flag bit information being used to record at least one function that the second component can have,” and “ the target function belonging to the function recorded in the flag bit information are Field of Use and Technological Environment, as restricting the type of information in the flag bit data does not provide any meaningful limits on the claim.
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 1: Claim 15, is directed to a non-transitory medium Therefore, "Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?" Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The limitation of claims 15 of “determining that the update information exists for the first component and/or the second component of the electronic device”, as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a person can the observe and record the existence of an available software firmware update using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2
In Claim 15, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements, “ the flag bit update information being at least used to characterize function item update information of the second component of the electronic device; “ and “ the third component being used by the second component to achieve the target function” merely recite instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea with the use of a computer, thus are not a practical application under Prong 2.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 6 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the additional elements of “ the flag bit update information being at least used to characterize function item update information of the second component of the electronic device; “ and “ the third component being used by the second component to achieve the target function” merely recite instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea with the use of a computer and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding the limitations of, “determining that correspondence information between the first component and the second component of the electronic device does not match;” and,” determining that current information of the first (or second) component of the electronic device does not match corresponding historical information,” are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art of computers. (see MPEP §2106.05(g))
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
After evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 and 19 are rejected as they do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15,16,19,20 are rejected under the same rationale as they do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims merely further elaborate the mental process itself of provide additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MITRA (US10936296B2), hereafter MITRA.
Regarding claim 1, MITRA discloses an update method comprising:
In response to determining that update information exists for a first component and/or a second component of an electronic device. The examiner will hereafter refer to the operating system as mapping to component 1 of the method of claim 1 and the “first software component currently stored on the computing device“ (col. 2, line 5-6) shall hereafter be established as mapping to component 2 identified in claim 1. MITRA states “verifying, at a remote cloud service, that an operating system of the computing device is scheduled for upgrade from a first configuration to a second configuration via a first upgrade package (update information) during an upcoming first upgrade event, (col. 2, line 21 – 26). Establishing the determination of the existence of update information for the first component as outlined in the method of claim 1.
obtaining target update data for the second component of the electronic device; MITRA states “the instructions cause the processor to submit a first update query to an online software repository regarding the first software component (component 2), and receive, from the online software repository, a first status indicating that a first content (target update data) is available to update the first software component from the initial version to an updated version, wherein the updated version is compatible with the second configuration (of component 1). … the instructions also cause the processor to selectively download the first content from the online software repository to the computing device during the first upgrade event.” (col. 2, line 8-20)
updating the second component based on the target update data. (col.2, line 17-20) "the instructions also cause the processor to selectively download the first content from the online software repository to the computing device during the first upgrade event, and automatically update the first software component from the initial version to the updated version during the first upgrade event.“ Updating the first software component using the first content corresponds to updating the second component based on the target data.
MITRA discloses, to cause the second component to provide a target function or realize the target function through the second component, wherein: the target update data has an association relationship with the update information. ” When an operating system (component 1) for a client computing device is upgraded to a new configuration, previous software programs and/or components thereof that were stored on the client computing device (ex. component 2) can become incompatible with the new operating system configuration. In other words, performance of previously functional software components may become disrupted following an OS upgrade…. (col. 4, line 12-20) the system can determine if the client device includes versions of the various software items that are incompatible with the OS upgrade. If any of these software items correspond to versions that are not compatible, the system will automatically execute an update retrieval and deployment process to increase the likelihood that full array of software items stored the computing device will perform as expected by the user at the time the upgrade occurs, or soon thereafter “ (col. 4, line 33-40) Establishing that the target function “realized” by component 2 through the method of claim 1 is equivalent to the functional software components that are updated to be made compatible through the update method in MITRA.
Regarding claim 2, MITRA discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MITRA also discloses determining that the update information exists for the first component and/or the second component of the electronic device includes at least one of:
determining that first update information exists for the first component and/or second update information exists for the second component in response to determining that correspondence information between the first component and the second component of the electronic device does not match.
determining that the first update information exists for the first component in response to determining that current information of the first component of the electronic device does not match corresponding historical information; or,
determining that the second update information exists for the second component in response to determining that current information of the second component of the electronic device does not match corresponding historical information
Regarding limitation ‘a’. As stated by the applicant spec [0036] “the mismatch in correspondence information between the first component and the second component may be that the version information between the first component and the second component does not match.“ ( MITRA [Col 4, lines 24-42] “An automated software update management system (“automated update system”) is configured to receive information about the upcoming OS upgrade and verify whether one or more of the software items on a client computing device will be impacted as a result of the upgrade…. the system can determine if the client device includes versions of the various software items that are incompatible with the OS upgrade. If any of these software items correspond to versions that are not compatible, the system will automatically execute an update retrieval and deployment process.”) The software item which corresponds to component 2 may be version incompatible with the OS version which correlates to the correspondence information between the first and second component that does not match. The update retrieval obtained for the software item corresponds to the second update information that exists for the second component in response to determining that correspondence information between the first component and the second component of the electronic device does not match.
Regarding claim 3, MITRA discloses the elements of claim 1 and claim 2 as outlined above. MITRA also discloses wherein determining that the first update information exists for the first component includes that: :
version update information exists for the second component;
flag bit update information exists for the first component, the flag bit update information being at least used to characterize function item update information of the second component of the electronic device; or
a replacement record exists for a third component of the electronic device, the third component being used for the second component of the electronic device to achieve the target function; or,
determining that the second update information exists for the second component includes that: the version update information exists for the second component; loading information exists for the second component;
or the replacement record exists for the third component, the third component being used by the second component to achieve the target function.
Regarding limitation ‘c’ ,as stated in the applicant spec [0047] ” loading information may include… downloading or uninstalling of software programs in the second component; or software reinstallation in the second component.” [MITRA Col 4, lines 24-42] An automated software update management system (“automated update system”) is configured to receive information about the upcoming OS upgrade and verify whether one or more of the software items on a client computing device will be impacted as a result of the upgrade…. the system can determine if the client device includes versions of the various software items that are incompatible with the OS upgrade. If any of these software items correspond to versions that are not compatible, the system will automatically execute an update retrieval and deployment process.”) Update retrieval for the software item corresponds to the version update information of the second component, and the deployment process of installing the update corresponds to loading information as downloading of software programs in the second component.
Regarding claim 4, MITRA discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. MITRA also discloses further comprising at least one of:
outputting target prompt information, and obtaining the target update data after obtaining target feedback information from a target user;
outputting the target prompt information, and updating the second component based on the target update data after obtaining the target feedback information from the target user; or
outputting the target prompt information in a target manner, and obtaining the target update data or updating the second component based on the target update data after obtaining the target feedback information from the target user, the target manner being determined based on the update information
Regarding limitation ‘b’.(MITRA, col. 11, line 3-18) “a determination is made that an operating system of a first configuration 310 is scheduled for an upgrade. The system presents an optional first message 312 via a device display 320 to notify the user of the pending upgrade and to provide an opportunity for the user to modify the scheduled event. In some implementations, the first message 312 may also include information related to the update of software referenced by the upgrade. Generally, software referenced by the upgrade will be affected by the new OS configuration and older versions of said software will require an update… a user may first receive an automated request from the system that informs the user of the planned upgrade event and corresponding software update session and asks the user to provide authorization, approval, or acknowledgement in order to proceed.” The message pertaining to the pending upgrade presented via a display device corresponds to the outputting the target prompt information. The user approval to proceed with the update on the software referenced by the upgrade (component 2) corresponds to updating the second component based on the target update data after obtaining the target feedback information from the target user.
Regarding claim 5, MITRA discloses the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. MITRA also discloses: wherein obtaining the target update data of the second component of the electronic device includes at least one of:
requesting target update data matching the update information from a target server;
obtaining an acquisition path of the target update data based on release information of the target update data to obtain the target update data based on the acquisition path;
obtaining the target update data of the second component pushed by the target server to the electronic device; or
obtaining the target update data of the second component from an edge device that has established a target communication connection with the electronic device.
Regarding limitation ‘a’ , (Col 2, lines 48-64). “the instructions cause the processor to submit a first update query to an online software repository regarding the first software component (component 2), and receive, from the online software repository, a first status indicating that a first content is available to update the first software component from the initial version to an updated version, wherein the updated version is compatible with the second configuration(of the OS ,component 1). Furthermore, the instructions also cause the processor to selectively download the first content from the online software repository to the computing device during the first upgrade event, and automatically update the first software component from the initial version to the updated version during the first upgrade event. “Submitting a query to the online software repository to get first content for the software component (component 2) corresponds to requesting target update data matching the update information from a target server.
Regarding claim 10, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 1. Thus claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Thus claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Thus claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Thus claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 1. Thus claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Thus claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Thus claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 4. Thus claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, it is a medium claim having similar imitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Thus claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-9, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MITRA (US10936296B2), in view of ASAHARA (US20180285091A1) hereafter ASAHARA and in further view of FISHMAN (US 20110041124 A1) hereafter FISHMAN.
Regarding claim 6, MITRA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MITRA does not appear to explicitly teach, however ASAHARA teaches obtaining the target update data of the second component includes:
determining at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on flag bit information in the first component, the flag bit information being used to record at least one function that the second component can have, the target function belonging to the function recorded in the flag bit information; ASAHARA states [0032-0035] “The setting storage unit 201 stores, in the secondary storage device 104, a setting for switching the behavior of each function of the image forming apparatus 100…. In the example shown in Table 1, a state is indicated in which there are two setting items, namely, setting A and setting B, and both the values are 0. … setting items may include a setting for any function among a plurality of functions included in one piece of firmware, or may include a setting for a function that is shared by a plurality of pieces of firmware. ... The firmware version storage unit 202 stores, in the secondary storage device 104, the versions of firmware pieces that are being operated in the image forming apparatus 100. In the example shown in Table 2, a state is indicated in which there are four pieces of firmware in total consisting of three pieces of firmware, namely, firmware 1, firmware 2 and firmware 3, and firmware for holding customized data, “) The settings in the setting storage unit which have an active state represented by 0 or 1 and represent functions shared by a plurality of pieces of firmware such as Firmware 1 and Firmware 2, correlate to at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on flag bit information in the first component ,the flag bit information being used to record at least one function that the second component can have, the target function belonging to the function recorded in the flag bit information;
and obtaining the target update data for setting the target function. [0010]“ the method comprising: obtaining, from an external apparatus, a data set which includes firmware and customized data indicating a setting value for a function of the firmware; performing firmware update using the firmware included in the obtained data set; and applying the customized data indicating the setting value for the function of the firmware included in the obtained data set to the firmware provided in the information processing apparatus.” The obtained dataset which contains firmware and customized data indicating a setting value for a function of the firmware corresponds to obtaining the target update data for setting the target function
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine MITRA with wherein obtaining the target update data of the second component includes: determining at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on flag bit information in the first component, the flag bit information being used to record at least one function that the second component can have, the target function belonging to the function recorded in the flag bit information; and obtaining the target update data for setting the target function, as taught by ASAHARA because customized data is used for synchronizing application features between multiple software components , using customized data ensures that the correct product firmware is obtained when updating software components and allows for the activation of required features. [ASAHARA, 0004]” if the combination of product firmware and customized data is wrong, there is an issue of the occurrence of a problem in that functions in the product firmware cannot be appropriately activated.“ Additionally, MITRA states that a (col 8 , lines 24-43) “sync management module 240 can begin to collect and coordinate current information regarding the various software items,… to determine whether the pending OS upgrade 260 will require modifications to any of the software programs (e.g., call for the installation of an update) in order to perform normally following the OS upgrade event.” Implementing custom data into the information collected in MITRA would improve the likelihood of the correct update packages being selected. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to “increase the likelihood that full array of software items stored the computing device will perform as expected by the user”. (MITRA, col 4, line: 38-40)
Regarding claim 7, MITRA in view of ASAHARA teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. ASAHARA further teaches determining the at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on the flag bit information in the first component include:
a. determining the at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on the flag bit information and the update information. [0050] “In step S701, the firmware update determination unit 205 detects a firmware update request.”[0051]” In step S702, the firmware update determination unit 205 reads the firmware list file 304 that is included in the firmware set 301 to be updated, and obtains a firmware list.” [0053]”In step S704, the firmware update determination unit 205 determines whether or not it is necessary to update the firmware to be processed. The determination here is performed by comparing the firmware versions stored in the firmware version storage unit 202 to the versions of the firmware written in the firmware list obtained in step S702. Here, a case in which it is attempted to update firmware on the firmware list in FIG. 5 for the image forming apparatus 100 that is in the state of Table 2 will be described as an example. It is determined that the firmware 1 and customized data, whose versions are to be upgraded from a version “1.0” to a version “1.1”, need to be updated.” [0055] “In step S706, the customized data application unit 207 determines whether or not the firmware extracted in step S705 includes the customized data 303. In the case where the customized data 303 is included (step S706: YES), the procedure advances to step S707, [0056]In step S707, the customized data application unit 207 applies the customized data 303. Here, a case in which the customized data 303 shown in FIG. 4 is applied to the image forming apparatus 100 that is in the state of Table 1 will be described as an example. Customization for setting a setting value “1” to the setting B is written in the customized data 303. When the customized data 303 is applied, settings stored in the setting storage unit 201 become as indicated in Table 4 “. When an update for Firmware 1 containing customized data changes the setting B , this value may be stored as a shared setting in the customized data of the setting storage unit and referenced by other Firmware for example Firmware 2 in figure 3.The Updated setting such as setting B in the shared setting corresponds to the at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device, the flag bit information corresponds to the existing setting in the setting storage unit, and the update information is the new customized data that updates setting B.
Regarding claim 8, MITRA in view of ASAHARA teaches the elements of claim 7 outlined above.
ASAHARA further teaches determining the at least one target function to be set in the second component of the electronic device based on the flag bit information and the update information includes:
determining at least one new function added in the flag bit information of the first component, and determining the at least one new function as the at least one target function to be set in the second component when the update information is that the first update information exists for the first component; [0042]” The firmware update determination unit 205 compares the version of each firmware stored in the firmware version storage unit 202 to the version of the firmware saved in the firmware list file 304, and determines whether or not the firmware needs to be updated. For example, assume that the version of the firmware 1 is “1.0” as indicated in Table 2, and the version of the firmware 1 included in the firmware set 301 is “1.1” as shown in FIG. 5. At this time, the firmware update determination unit 205 detects that the version has been upgraded, and determines that the firmware 1 needs to be updated. Also, assume that the version of the firmware 2 is “1.0” as indicated in Table 2, and the version of the firmware 2 included in the firmware set 301 is “1.0” as indicated in FIG. 5. At this time, the firmware update determination unit 205 detects that the version has not been changed, and determines that the firmware 2 does not need to be updated. “[0044]The customized data application unit 207 applies a custom switch held by the customized data 303 to a setting value stored in the setting storage unit 201.
When update information exists for firmware 1 which corresponds to the first component, this update may still be paired with customized data which can store shared settings for other components on the device and thus can contain at least one new function as the at least one target function to be set in the second component.
and determining at least one function recorded in the flag bit information of the first component as the at least one target function to be set by the second component when the update information is that the second update information exists for the second component. As stated previously , because the customized data is shared between device components, an update indicating a firmware update for firmware 2 corresponding to the second component may include customized data to update a function required by firmware 2 that already exists in the customized data located in the firmware storage area and a shared reference for other firmware such as Firmware 1 which corresponds to at least one function recorded in the flag bit information of the first component as the at least one target function to be set by the second component.
Regarding claim 9, MITRA teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MITRA does not appear to explicitly teach however ASAHARA teaches, after updating the second component based on the target update data further comprising:
obtaining a functional state configuration table configured by a user for the second component, the functional state configuration table including at least one candidate function that the second component needs to activate;
ASAHARA teaches that following a firmware update, during step S1012 if the customized data application unit detects a customized data table, it is acquired by that unit. After obtaining the customized data table it is applied to the settings of the device. [0089-0091] (see FIG.10 S1011 – s1014) The customized data table contains entries that may be configured by a user within the electronic device for example in one embodiment “Specific examples of the customized data include a setting for activating a function of displaying a company name and a logo on a default screen, and the like”. [0040]
setting the at least one candidate function in the second component to an activate state based on the functional state configuration table to cause the second component to provide or realize the target function if the at least one candidate function includes the target function;
In step S1014, the customized data application unit 207 applies the customized data” (enabling or disabling the feature). [0091]
storing the functional state configuration table in a storage area of the first component;
As stated by ASAHARA, “The secondary storage device 104 is constituted by a large capacity storage device… such as a hard disk or a RAM drive, and holds setting values.” [0028] This storage may be accessed by or belong to the first component depending on the electronic device.
in response to a (mode change) instruction of the electronic device, activating the at least one candidate function in the second component through the first component based on the functional state configuration table stored in the storage area of the first component to cause the second component to provide or realize the target function after the electronic device is restarted and the at least one candidate function includes the target function.
ASAHARA states “In step S1011, the firmware update mode start control unit 903 changes the start mode of the image forming apparatus 100 to the normal start mode” [0088]Following the mode change, “the customized data application unit 207 applies the customized data. [0091] (See FIG.10 step S1011 – S1014)
MITRA and ASAHARA do not explicitly teach that activating the at least one candidate function in limitation ‘d’ is in response to restart instruction however MITRA displays in Figure 3 , an available upgrade screen indicating that updates may require a restart of the device to proceed with the update.
FISHMAN teaches that [0045] “The update system 116 may receive updates to a software system and may apply the updates. In some cases, the update system 116 may cause the software system to restart, the hardware system 104 to reboot, or perform other functions to complete the update.” [0048] “An update to the operating system may include adding new files, updating existing files, replacing existing files, or performing various configuration changes. “ Performing various configuration changes following restart serve to make applications function as intended and allow the device to apply these configurations all at once.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine MITRA with after updating the second component based on the target update data further comprising: obtaining a functional state configuration table configured by a user for the second component, the functional state configuration table including at least one candidate function that the second component needs to activate; setting the at least one candidate function in the second component to an activate state based on the functional state configuration table to cause the second component to provide or realize the target function if the at least one candidate function includes the target function; storing the functional state configuration table in a storage area of the first component; in response to a restart instruction of the electronic device, activating the at least one candidate function in the second component through the first component based on the functional state configuration table stored in the storage area of the first component to cause the second component to provide or realize the target function after the electronic device is restarted and the at least one candidate function includes the target function. As taught by ASAHARA and in further view of FISHMAN because storing application settings, and activating settings within a software application following an update serves to ensure that desired user settings are implemented and persisted. In cases where a restart is required to complete an update, setting the configuration for affected programs following a restart reduces the manual effort on the user by automatically storing and activating the customized data settings.
Regarding claim 19, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 6. Thus claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 7. Thus claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 20130254756 A1 ) METHOD AND DEVICE TO AUTOMATICALLY UPDATE A COMPUTER SYSTEM; Teaches a method for updating codependent software applications within a computer system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE O'CONNOR EMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 pm
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 at (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.
/L.S.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights