DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on April 16, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Applicant’s representative was contacted by the Examiner on February 2, 2026 regarding proposed claim amendments to put the claims in condition for allowance. However, the Applicant’s representative informed the Examiner to prepare a Non-Final Rejection instead. Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center in order to facilitate compact prosecution.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: FIRMWARE OF A SINGLE-PROTOCOL BASED ONE-CHIP RADIO DEVICE PRESENT IN AN INTERNET OF THINGS (IoT) ENVIRONMENT.
Claim Objections
Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and 37 CFR 1.75 with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 706(II) DEFECTS IN FORM OR OMISSION OF A LIMITATION; CLAIMS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and the applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and when possible should offer a definite suggestion for correction.
MPEP § 2173.02(II) THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF CLARITY AND PRECISION
The examiner’s focus during examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is whether the claim meets the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. When the examiner is satisfied that patentable subject matter is disclosed, and it is apparent to the examiner that the claims are directed to such patentable subject matter, the examiner should allow claims which define the patentable subject matter with the required degree of particularity and distinctness. Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of terms should be permitted so long as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is satisfied. Examiners are encouraged to suggest claim language to applicants to improve the clarity or precision of the language used, but should not insist on their own preferences if other modes of expression selected by applicants satisfy the statutory requirement.
37 CFR 1.75 Claim(s).
(a) The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
According to the sections of the MPEP and the patent rule provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that a claim must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. In accordance with MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and in the claim objections hereinafter, the Examiner provides suggested claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims in order to improve the clarity or precision of the claim language used. Hence, doing so would help the Examiner in reviewing the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Examiner believes that making claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims will promote a clearer understanding of the claims and ease of readability for the readers.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, and 19 recite “the flash memory.” It should read -- the flash memory of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device --.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite “a size of flash memory.” It should read -- a size of a flash memory of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device --.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite “one or more hardware resources at a controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.” It should read -- one or more hardware resources available at a controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device --.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite “the controller level.” It should read -- the controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device --.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite “the received firmware package.” It should read -- the received firmware update package --.
Claims 2 and 20 recite “of user selection.” It should read -- or user selection --.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “the firmware update package.” It should read -- the received firmware update package --.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the updating.” It should read -- wherein the updating of the firmware --.
Claim 5 recites “the backup.” It should read -- the backup of the one or more devices
--.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “prior to the updating.” It should read -- prior to the updating of the firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device --.
Claim 6 recites “the updating the firmware.” It should read -- the updating of the firmware --.
Claims 6, 9, 10, and 16 recite “the selected one or more firmware resources.” It should read -- the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources --.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the one or more connectivity protocols includes.” It should read -- wherein the one or more connectivity protocols include --.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “Bluetooth low energy (BLE).” It should read -- Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) --.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the one or more hardware resources includes.” It should read -- wherein the one or more hardware resources include --.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “radio, channel range, network co-processor/radio co-processor (NCP/RCP).” It should read -- radio, channel range, and network co-processor/radio co-processor (NCP/RCP) --.
Claim 11 recites “memory.” It should read -- a memory --.
Claim 15 recites “restore connectivity of one or more devices.” It should read -- restore connectivity of the one or more devices --.
Claim 15 recites “prior to the updating.” It should read -- prior to the updating of the firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, using the backup of the one or more devices --.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) determining a size of flash memory and one or more hardware resources at a controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, based on receiving the firmware update package;
(b) correlating the received firmware update package with the size of the flash memory, the one or more hardware resources available at the controller level, and a current IoT context associated with the IoT environment; and
(c) […] selecting one or more firmware resources from the received firmware package for updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device based on the correlation.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) dynamically.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine a size of a flash memory and one or more hardware resources. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to correlate the firmware update package. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to select one or more firmware resources. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) dynamically.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The term “dynamically” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the selecting step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) receiving a firmware update package, wherein the firmware update package includes one or more firmware resources associated with one or more connectivity protocols.
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of updating without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) dynamically.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) receiving a firmware update package, wherein the firmware update package includes one or more firmware resources associated with one or more connectivity protocols.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a firmware update package. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the dynamically selecting of the one or more firmware resources is based on at least one of hardware/radio availability, usage of devices in the IoT environment and location and behavior of the devices in the IoT environment, geo-location of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, application load on the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, firmware resources, priority of the devices in the IoT environment, user preference, of user selection.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) creating space for the firmware update package using network co-processor (NCP) to radio co-processor (RCP).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) taking a backup of one or more devices connected to the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the updating of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with multiple protocols further comprises restoring connectivity of the one or more devices previously connected to the single-protocol based one-chip radio device prior to the updating, using the backup.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) dropping one or more firmware resources from the selected one or more firmware resources, based on a failure occurring according to the updating the firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more connectivity protocols includes at least one of Zigbee, Thread, or Bluetooth low energy (BLE).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more hardware resources includes radio, channel range, network co-processor/radio co-processor (NCP/RCP) at the controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) flashing the selected one or more firmware resources into the flash memory.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein the selected one or more firmware resources is a first resource information, and
(b) wherein the method further comprises, based on failure of the flashing being detected:
(c) recalculating one or more blocks present in the firmware update package,
(d) obtaining a second resource information by dropping one or more firmware resources from the selected one or more firmware resources,
(e) re-flashing the second resource information into the flash memory, and
(f) updating the firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the second resource information.
Claims 2, 6-8, and 10 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 2 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 9, and 10 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-10 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 11 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a single-protocol based one-chip radio device, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 11 recites the limitations:
(a) determine a size of flash memory and one or more hardware resources at a controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, based on receiving the firmware update package;
(b) correlate the received firmware update package with the size of the flash memory, the one or more hardware resources available at the controller level, and a current IoT context associated with the IoT environment; and
(c) […] select one or more firmware resources from the received firmware package for updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device based on the correlation.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) memory;
(2) a firmware control module coupled with the memory;
(3) one or more processors configured to be electrically connected to the firmware control module and the memory;
(4) wherein the memory store one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to; and
(5) dynamically.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine a size of a flash memory and one or more hardware resources. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to correlate the firmware update package. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to select one or more firmware resources. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) memory;
(2) a firmware control module coupled with the memory;
(3) one or more processors configured to be electrically connected to the firmware control module and the memory;
(4) wherein the memory store one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to; and
(5) dynamically.
The additional elements (1) to (5) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The memory, firmware control module, processors, and single-protocol based one-chip radio device are used as tools to perform the various steps of the claim. And the term “dynamically” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the selecting step of the claim See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(6) receive a firmware update package, wherein the firmware update package includes one or more firmware resources associated with one or more connectivity protocols.
The additional element (6) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(7) update firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources.
The additional element (7) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of updating without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) memory;
(2) a firmware control module coupled with the memory;
(3) one or more processors configured to be electrically connected to the firmware control module and the memory;
(4) wherein the memory store one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to; and
(5) dynamically.
The additional elements (1) to (5) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(6) receive a firmware update package, wherein the firmware update package includes one or more firmware resources associated with one or more connectivity protocols.
The additional element (6) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a firmware update package. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(7) update firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources.
The additional element (7) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-18 are dependent on Claim 11, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to dynamically select one or more firmware resources based on at least one of hardware/radio availability, usage of devices in the IoT environment and location and behavior of the devices in the IoT environment, geo-location of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, application load on the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, firmware resources, priority of the devices in the IoT environment, user preference, or user selection.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to create space for the firmware update package using network co- processor (NCP) to radio co-processor (RCP).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to take a backup of one or more devices connected to the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more computer programs further comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to restore connectivity of one or more devices previously connected to the single-protocol based one-chip radio device prior to the updating.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
(a) dropping one or more firmware resources from the selected one or more firmware resources, based on a failure occurring according to the updating the firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more connectivity protocols includes at least one of Zigbee, Thread, or Bluetooth low energy (BLE).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more hardware resources includes radio, channel range, network co- processor/radio co-processor (NCP/RCP) at the controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device.
Claims 12 and 16-18 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 12 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 13-15 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 12-18 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 11 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 11-18 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 19 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 19 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 19 recites the limitations:
(a) determining a size of flash memory and one or more hardware resources at a controller level of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, based on receiving the firmware update package;
(b) correlating the received firmware update package with the size of the flash memory, the one or more hardware resources available at the controller level, and a current IoT context associated with the IoT environment; and
(c) […] selecting one or more firmware resources from the received firmware package for updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device based on the correlation.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a single-protocol based one-chip radio device present in an Internet of things (IoT) environment, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to perform operations, the operations comprising; and
(2) dynamically.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine a size of a flash memory and one or more hardware resources. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to correlate the firmware update package. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the firmware update package in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to select one or more firmware resources. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a single-protocol based one-chip radio device present in an Internet of things (IoT) environment, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to perform operations, the operations comprising; and
(2) dynamically.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory computer-readable storage media, processors, and single-protocol based one-chip radio device are used as tools to perform the various steps of the claim. And the term “dynamically” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the selecting step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) receiving a firmware update package, wherein the firmware update package includes one or more firmware resources associated with one or more connectivity protocols.
The additional element (3) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources.
The additional element (4) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of updating without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a single-protocol based one-chip radio device present in an Internet of things (IoT) environment, cause the single-protocol based one-chip radio device to perform operations, the operations comprising; and
(2) dynamically.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) receiving a firmware update package, wherein the firmware update package includes one or more firmware resources associated with one or more connectivity protocols.
The additional element (3) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a firmware update package. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device using the dynamically selected one or more firmware resources.
The additional element (4) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating firmware of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is dependent on Claim 19, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the dynamically selecting of the one or more firmware resources is based on at least one of hardware/radio availability, usage of devices in the IoT environment and location and behavior of the devices in the IoT environment, geo-location of the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, application load on the single-protocol based one-chip radio device, firmware resources, priority of the devices in the IoT environment, user preference, of user selection.
Claim 20 recites further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 20 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claim 20 does not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 19 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 19 and 20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the cited prior art. However, the Applicant must overcome any corresponding objections and/or rejections of these claims set forth hereinabove in order to place these claims in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2007/0245333 (hereinafter “Ferlitsch”) discloses downloading firmware to network peripheral devices.
US 2014/0007069 (hereinafter “Cavalaris”) discloses collectively handling firmware updates for hardware resources of a computing device.
US 2016/0117165 (hereinafter “Cavalaris”) discloses collectively handling firmware updates for hardware resources of a computing device.
US 2019/0138295 (hereinafter “Agerstam”) discloses delivery of firmware updates to selected nodes of mesh networks.
US 2022/0374221 (hereinafter “Sayyed”) discloses managing firmware updates of an information handling system.
US 2023/0112734 (hereinafter “Suryanarayana”) discloses modular firmware updates in information handling systems.
US 2023/0127992 (hereinafter “Samuel”) discloses applying a firmware update at an information handling system based on power requirements.
US 7,293,169 (hereinafter “Righi”) discloses remotely updating firmware of multiple computers over a distributed network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191