DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on April 19, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on June 25, 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the Non Patent Literature does not have an English translation. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0004], lines 11-12, recite “the second application interface.” It should read – the second application programming interface --.
Paragraph [0012], line 13, recites “the second application.” It should read – the second application programming interface --.
Paragraph [0038], line 26, recites “HPM header.” It should read – ACT header --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 18, recites “the second application.” It should read – the second application programming interface --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16 and 18 recite, in line 18 and line 4 respectively, the limitation “the first application programming interface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets the limitation as -- a first application programming interface – in Claims 16 and 18.
Claim 17 depends on Claim 16. Therefore, Claim 17 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 16.
Claim 19 recites, in lines 6-7, the limitation “the second application.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets the limitation as -- a second application programming interface – in Claim 19.
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 system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
detect a first field of the firmware updating file to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a first format; and
in response to the firmware updating file supporting the first format, detecting a second field to obtain an identifier.
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:
a communication interface, adapted to;
a storage medium, storing a plurality of modules; and
a processor, coupled to the storage medium and the communication interface, adapted to access and execute the modules, wherein the modules comprise;
a first application programming interface, adapted to;
a second application programming interface.
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 and evaluating a field of a firmware updating file to detect a first field of a firmware updating file to determine if the file supports a first format using observation and evaluation. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a field using observation and evaluation to detect a second field to obtain an identifier. 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:
a communication interface, adapted to;
a storage medium, storing a plurality of modules; and
a processor, coupled to the storage medium and the communication interface, adapted to access and execute the modules, wherein the modules comprise;
a first application programming interface, adapted to;
a second application programming interface.
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 communication interface, storage medium, processor, first application programming interface, and second application programming interface are used as tools to perform the receiving, detecting, and transmitting steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
receive a firmware updating file, wherein the firmware updating file comprises boot data;
wherein after obtaining the identifier, transmits the boot data to a firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.
The additional elements (6) and (7) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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:
a communication interface, adapted to;
a storage medium, storing a plurality of modules; and
a processor, coupled to the storage medium and the communication interface, adapted to access and execute the modules, wherein the modules comprise;
a first application programming interface, adapted to;
a second application programming interface.
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 elements:
receive a firmware updating file, wherein the firmware updating file comprises boot data;
wherein after obtaining the identifier, transmits the boot data to a firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.
The additional elements (6) and (7) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 updating file and transmit boot data to a firmware component. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
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 and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a first header, and the first header comprises the first field and the second field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
the first application programming interface;
wherein in response to the firmware updating file not supporting the first format, obtains the identifier from the first field;
wherein after obtaining the identifier, transmits the boot data to the firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a second header, and the second header comprises the first field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, and the second header corresponds to an action header in the hardware platform management format.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitations:
wherein the first application programming interface;
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a third header;
detects a third field in the third header to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a second format;
wherein in response to the firmware updating file supporting the second format, detects the first field to determine whether the firmware updating file supports the first format.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, and the third header corresponds to a hardware platform management header in the hardware platform management format.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
the first application programming interface;
wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, the first field corresponds to a component field in the hardware platform management format, the first field comprises a reserved bit; and
determines whether the firmware updating file supports the first format according to the reserved bit.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
wherein the second application;
obtains the identifier according to a byte in the second field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
wherein the communication interface supports at least one of a serial peripheral interface and an integrated bus circuit.
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 6 and 8 (additional elements (c) and (d) recited in Claim 6 and additional element (c) recited in Claim 8) 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)).
Claims 2-10 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 3, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 6, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 8, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 9, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 10 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element (a) recited in Claim 2, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 4, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 5, the additional element (b) recited in Claim 6, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 7, and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 8 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 3 and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 9 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, Claims 2-10 when considered both individually and as a combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in Claims 2-10 are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claims 6 and 8 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite further mental steps that fail to make the claim any less abstract and do not recite any further additional elements. The additional element (a) recited in Claim 3, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 6, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 8, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 9, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 10 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element (a) recited in Claim 2, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 4, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 5, the additional element (b) recited in Claim 6, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 7, and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 8 do not amount to significantly more because they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional elements (b) and (c) recited in Claim 3 and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 9 do not amount to significantly more because they are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities which simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 obtain an identifier from a field and transmit boot data to a firmware component. Therefore, Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are therefore 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 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 11 recites the limitations:
detecting a first field of the firmware updating file to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a first format;
in response to the firmware updating file supporting the first format, detecting a second field to obtain an identifier.
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:
through a communication interface.
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 and evaluating a field of a firmware updating file to detect a first field of a firmware updating file to determine if the file supports a first format using observation and evaluation. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a field using observation and evaluation to detect a second field to obtain an identifier. 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:
through a communication interface.
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 communication interface is used as a tool to perform the receiving step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
receiving a firmware updating file, wherein the firmware updating file comprises boot data;
transmitting the boot data to a firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.
The additional elements (2) and (3) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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:
through a communication interface.
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 elements:
receiving a firmware updating file, wherein the firmware updating file comprises boot data;
transmitting the boot data to a firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.
The additional elements (2) and (3) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 updating file and transmit boot data to a firmware component. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
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 and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a first header, and the first header comprises the first field and the second field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitations:
in response to the firmware updating file not supporting the first format, obtaining the identifier from the first field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a second header, and the second header comprises the first field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, and the second header corresponds to an action header in the hardware platform management format.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitations:
wherein the first application programming interface;
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a third header;
detects a third field in the third header to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a second format;
wherein in response to the firmware updating file supporting the second format, detects the first field to determine whether the firmware updating file supports the first format.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, and the third header corresponds to a hardware platform management header in the hardware platform management format.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitations:
the first application programming interface;
wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, the first field corresponds to a component field in the hardware platform management format, the first field comprises a reserved bit; and
determines whether the firmware updating file supports the first format according to the reserved bit.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitations:
wherein the second application;
obtains the identifier according to a byte in the second field.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
wherein the communication interface supports at least one of a serial peripheral interface and an integrated bus circuit.
These claims are dependent on Claim 11, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 11.
Claims 16 and 18 (additional elements (c) and (d) recited in Claim 16 and additional element (c) recited in Claim 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)).
Claims 12-20 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. Specifically, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 16, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 18, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 19, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 20 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element (a) recited in Claim 12, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 14, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 15, the additional element (b) recited in Claim 16, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 17, and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 18 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional element (a) recited in Claim 13 and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 19 fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, Claims 12-20 when considered both individually and as a combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in Claims 12-20 are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Claims 16 and 18 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite further mental steps that fail to make the claim any less abstract and do not recite any further additional elements. The additional element (a) recited in Claim 16, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 18, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 19, and the additional element (a) recited in Claim 20 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element (a) recited in Claim 12, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 14, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 15, the additional element (b) recited in Claim 16, the additional element (a) recited in Claim 17, and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 18 do not amount to significantly more because they amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The additional element (a) recited in Claim 13 and the additional element (b) recited in Claim 19 do not amount to significantly more because they are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities which simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 obtain an identifier from a field. Therefore, Claims 12-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception that would convert Claim 11 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 11-20 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112,130,885A (hereinafter “Yao”) in view of US 2020/0320223 (hereinafter “Narayanan”).
As per Claim 1, Yao discloses:
An electronic device (paragraph [0006], “The purpose of this invention is to provide a method and system for generating HPM format BIOS images with in-band refresh […] (emphasis added).”) for updating a firmware, comprising:
a communication interface, adapted to receive a firmware updating file, wherein the firmware updating file comprises boot data (paragraph [0009], “The HPM format image is transmitted to the server's BIOS program through the BIOS flashing tool [communication interface], and the BIOS program parses the HPM format image (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0006], “The purpose of this invention is to provide a method and system for generating HPM format BIOS images with in-band refresh […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “The BIOS program on the server product extracts the model and product characteristics information from the parsed HPM format image information, and calls the code to determine the model and product characteristics information through hardware GPIO during the boot process (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Yao discloses an HPM format image file with in-band refresh to solve the problem of boot failures caused by firmware mismatch. Yao also discloses the HPM format image containing model/product information and determining the model/product information during the boot process. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the HPM format image is a firmware updating file since it's being used for in-band refresh which is for updating firmware. Moreover, the HPM image format must include boot data since it contains data that would be accessed during the boot process (such as model and product characteristics).];
a storage medium, storing a plurality of modules (paragraph [0028], “The present invention also provides a readable storage medium for storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the in-band refresh HPM format BIOS image generation method (emphasis added).”); and
a processor, coupled to the storage medium and the communication interface, adapted to access and execute the modules (paragraph [0028], “The present invention also provides a readable storage medium for storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the in-band refresh HPM format BIOS image generation method (emphasis added).”), wherein the modules comprise:
a [program], adapted to detect a first field of the firmware updating file to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a first format (paragraph [0022], “The image matching module is used to extract the image type [first field] from the parsed HPM format image, determine whether it is a BIOS image [first format], and whether the extracted model product feature information belongs to the BIOS image required by this model product (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Yao discloses a BIOS program parsing the HPM format image file to extract the image type and determine if it is a BIOS image. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the BIOS program detected a field disclosing the image type to determine whether the HPM format image is (supports) a BIOS image (a format).]; and
a [program], in response to the firmware updating file supporting the first format, detecting a second field to obtain an identifier (paragraph [0041], “Extract the image type from the parsed HPM format image, determine whether it is a BIOS image [first format], and determine whether the extracted model product feature information [second field] belongs to the BIOS image required by this model product (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “The BIOS program on the server product extracts the model and product characteristics information [identifier] from the parsed HPM format image information, and calls the code to determine the model and product characteristics information through hardware GPIO during the boot process (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Yao discloses a BIOS program parsing the HPM format image file to extract the image type, determine if it is a BIOS image, and determine whether the extracted model/feature information belongs to the BIOS image. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that in response to the HPM format image file (firmware updating file) supporting the BIOS image (first format), the BIOS program detected a field (the extracted model product feature) to obtain an identifier (model/product characteristics information of device model) in order to determine whether the model product feature information belongs to the BIOS image required by the model product.], wherein
after obtaining the identifier, the [program] transmits the boot data to a firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component (paragraph [0051], “The AFU tool is then used to pass the HPM format image to the BIOS program. The BIOS program parses the image file and matches it to the device model based on the feature information. If the match is successful, the traditional BIOS image and ME configuration file in the HPM format image [boot data] are extracted and flashed [transmitted] into the Flash chip [through the communication interface] of the device model, achieving in-band flashing (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0043], “In-band BIOS refresh refers to refreshing the BIOS image to the Flash chip using a BIOS refresh tool under the operating system.”).
Yao does not explicitly disclose:
a first application programming interface, adapted to detect a first field […];
a second application programming interface, in response to the firmware updating file supporting the first format, detecting a second field […];
the second application programming interface transmits the boot data […].
However, Narayanan discloses:
a first application programming interface, adapted to detect a first field (paragraph [0028], “The data repositories may be configured to store data associated with an entity of the internal network. The data may be accessed via the one or more internal API's [first application programming interface]. The data may include one or more data files. Each data file may include field names and value pairs (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0030], “When the one or more internal API's retrieve the data from the data repositories, the one or more internal API's may be configured to disassociate the data from the internal network […] The internal API's may mask and delete personal identifiers associated with the data files to further provide data privacy protection (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Narayanan discloses data within data repositories being accessed and retrieved by an internal API as well as masking/deleting personal identifiers associated with data files. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the internal API must detect fields within the data repository in order to retrieve data from the repository. Moreover, the internal API would also have to detect a field corresponding to a personal identifier for a data file in order to mask/delete it.];
a second application programming interface, detecting a second field (paragraph [0036], “In some embodiments, when one or more data files include the same user, the centralized data conversion API [second application programming interface] may be configured to determine [detect] the fields in each file that may be associated with the user and create identical fictional data strings for each matching field in each file (emphasis added).”);
the second application programming interface transmits the [data] (paragraph [0041], “Following the conversion, the centralized data conversion API may transmit the secure data to the internal API (emphasis added).”).
Yao is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of a firmware upgrading file in updating firmware. Narayanan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of application programming interfaces in detecting fields and transmitting data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Narayanan into the teaching of Yao to include “a first application programming interface, adapted to detect a first field of the firmware updating file to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a first format; and a second application programming interface, in response to the firmware updating file supporting the first format, detecting a second field to obtain an identifier, wherein after obtaining the identifier, the second application programming interface transmits the boot data to a firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a centralized API and internal API in detecting fields and transmitting data to aid in centralizing a process, such as for converting sensitive data, in order to enable a uniform conversion for all data which may “enhance the accuracy and the clarity of the data to be tested” (Narayanan, paragraphs [0027 & 0041]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yao further discloses:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a first header, and the first header comprises the first field and the second field (paragraph [0047], “In this embodiment of the invention, the HPM image [firmware updating file] structure is defined as follows: the first 0x92 bytes store information such as signature, image type [first field], model product characteristics [second field], manufacturer information, verification information, and traditional image size, followed by traditional image information and other information defined by HPM. That is, the HPM format image file consists of HPM header information + traditional image information + HPM tail information (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yao discloses “wherein in response to the firmware updating file not supporting the first format, the [program stops refreshing] (paragraph [0064], “Extract the image type from the parsed HPM format image [firmware updating file] information and determine whether it is a BIOS image. If it is not a BIOS image [not supporting the first format], stop refreshing and log the information, such as "The image being refreshed is not a BIOS image, stop refreshing" (emphasis added).”)” and “wherein after obtaining the identifier, the [program] transmits the boot data to the firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component (paragraph [0051], “The AFU tool is then used to pass the HPM format image to the BIOS program. The BIOS program parses the image file and matches it to the device model based on the feature information. If the match is successful, the traditional BIOS image and ME configuration file in the HPM format image [boot data] are extracted and flashed [transmitted] into the Flash chip [through the communication interface] of the device model, achieving in-band flashing. This ensures both BIOS availability and security, effectively avoiding serious problems such as boot failure caused by firmware incompatibility, which seriously affect customer use (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0043], “In-band BIOS refresh refers to refreshing the BIOS image to the Flash chip using a BIOS refresh tool under the operating system.”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein in response to the firmware updating file not supporting the first format, the first application programming interface obtains the identifier from the first field, wherein
after obtaining the identifier, the first application programming interface transmits the boot data […].
However, Narayanan discloses:
the first application programming interface obtains the identifier from the first field (paragraph [0028], “Each data file may include field names and value pairs (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0030], “The internal API's [first application programming interface] may mask and delete personal identifiers associated with the data files to further provide data privacy protection (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Narayanan discloses data files including field names and value pairs as well as an internal API masking and deleting personal identifiers associated with the data files. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the internal API (first application programming interface) had to first obtain the identifier from a field in order to mask and delete the personal identifier of a data file.];
the first application programming interface transmits the [data] (paragraph [0041], “The internal API [first application programming interface] may be configured to transmit, via the communication platform, the secure data to the one or more external networks (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Narayanan into the teaching of Yao to include “wherein in response to the firmware updating file not supporting the first format, the first application programming interface obtains the identifier from the first field, wherein after obtaining the identifier, the first application programming interface transmits the boot data to the firmware component corresponding to the identifier through the communication interface to update the firmware component.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an API in obtaining an identifier in order to mask it since “masking all personal information within the data files, may automatically reduce the cost of handling and managing of the masked data in an external environment because the de-sensitized data, disassociated from the internal network, may not entail advanced levels of authentication and security” (Narayanan, paragraphs [0030 & 0031]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and Yao further discloses:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a second header, and the second header comprises the first field (paragraph [0047], “In this embodiment of the invention, the HPM image [firmware updating file] structure is defined as follows: the first 0x92 bytes store information such as signature, image type [first field], model product characteristics [second field], manufacturer information, verification information, and traditional image size, followed by traditional image information and other information defined by HPM. That is, the HPM format image file consists of HPM header information + traditional image information + HPM tail information (emphasis added).”).
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Narayanan as applied to Claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of US 7,676,562 (hereinafter “Reistad”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Yao discloses “wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format (paragraph [0047], “That is, the HPM format image file consists of HPM header information + traditional image information + HPM tail information (emphasis added).”),” but the combination of Yao and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose:
the second header corresponds to an action header in the hardware platform management format.
However, Reistad discloses:
the second header corresponds to an action header in the [request] (col. 7 lines 64-66, “The Action header 310 may indicate that the request message 30 is a particular type of request for a particular operation or action (emphasis added).”).
Reistad is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the utilization of action headers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Reistad into the combined teachings of Yao and Narayanan to include “the second header corresponds to an action header in the hardware platform management format.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an action header in providing metadata that is compliant with a certain standard and identifies certain data ”for a particular operation or action” within a SOAP message to support various transports for instrumentation information messages since computer system resources “that provide instrumentation may allow management software to diagnose and correct problems in an enterprise computing environment” (Reistad, col. 3 lines 19-21 & lines 25-28, col. 7 lines 64-66, & col. 8 lines 4-6).
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Narayanan as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of CN 109,840,107A (hereinafter “Dong”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yao discloses “the firmware updating file (paragraph [0006], “The purpose of this invention is to provide a method and system for generating HPM format BIOS images [firmware updating file] with in-band refresh […] (emphasis added).”)” and “the [module] detects the first field to determine whether the firmware updating file supports the first format (paragraph [0022], “The image matching module is used to extract the image type [first field] from the parsed HPM format image, determine whether it is a BIOS image [first format], and whether the extracted model product feature information belongs to the BIOS image required by this model product (emphasis added).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a third header, wherein
the first application programming interface detects a third field in the third header to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a second format, wherein
in response to the firmware updating file supporting the second format, the first application programming interface detects the first field to determine whether the firmware updating file supports the first format.
However, Narayanan discloses:
the first application programming interface detects a [field] (paragraph [0028], “The data repositories may be configured to store data associated with an entity of the internal network. The data may be accessed via the one or more internal API's [first application programming interface]. The data may include one or more data files. Each data file may include field names and value pairs (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0030], “When the one or more internal API's retrieve the data from the data repositories, the one or more internal API's may be configured to disassociate the data from the internal network […] The internal API's may mask and delete personal identifiers associated with the data files to further provide data privacy protection (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Narayanan discloses data within data repositories being accessed and retrieved by an internal API as well as masking/deleting personal identifiers associated with data files. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the internal API must detect fields within the data repository in order to retrieve data from the repository. Moreover, the internal API would also have to detect a field corresponding to a personal identifier for a data file in order to mask/delete it.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Narayanan into the teaching of Yao to include “the first application programming interface detects a [field].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an API in detecting a field to obtain an identifier in order to mask it since “masking all personal information within the data files, may automatically reduce the cost of handling and managing of the masked data in an external environment because the de-sensitized data, disassociated from the internal network, may not entail advanced levels of authentication and security” (Narayanan, paragraphs [0030 & 0031]).
However, Dong discloses:
wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a third header (paragraph [0032], “S3: After the HPM format upgrade image [firmware updating file] is successfully uploaded, BMC performs verification on the image file header, including the manufacturer, product, and checksum, and verifies whether the image matches [supports] the current upgrade environment (emphasis added).“), wherein
the [BMC] detects a third field in the third header to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a second format (paragraph [0032], “S3: After the HPM format upgrade image [firmware updating file] is successfully uploaded, BMC performs verification on the image file header, including the manufacturer, product, and checksum, and verifies whether the image matches [supports] the current upgrade environment (emphasis added).“) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Dong discloses the BMC performing verification on the image file header including the manufacturer, product, and checksum to verify whether the HPM format image matches (supports) the current upgrade environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the BMC detected fields (third field) corresponding to the manufacturer, product, and checksum within the image file header (third header) to determine whether the HPM format image (firmware updating file) supports the current upgrade environment (second format).], wherein
in response to the firmware updating file supporting the second format, the [BMC decompresses the firmware updating file] (paragraph [0032], “[…] verifies whether the image matches the current upgrade environment.“; paragraph [0033], “S4: After BMC verification is completed, if the match is successful [supports the second format], the HPM format upgrade image [firmware updating file] will be decompressed into the original upgrade image and the image verification result file (emphasis added).”).
Dong is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of a firmware updating file to update firmware.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dong into the combined teachings of Yao and Narayanan to include “wherein the firmware updating file further comprises a third header, wherein the first application programming interface detects a third field in the third header to determine whether the firmware updating file supports a second format, wherein in response to the firmware updating file supporting the second format, the first application programming interface detects the first field to determine whether the firmware updating file supports the first format.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an HPM format upgrade image and perform verification on the image file header when upgrading a server BMC to “better achieve a secure way to upgrade BMC” (Dong, paragraphs [0005 & 0007]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and Yao discloses “wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format, and the [header] corresponds to a hardware platform management header in the hardware platform management format (paragraph [0047], “That is, the HPM format image file consists of HPM header information + traditional image information + HPM tail information (emphasis added).”),” but the combination of Yao and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose:
the third header.
However, Dong discloses:
the third header (paragraph [0032], “S3: After the HPM format upgrade image [firmware updating file] is successfully uploaded, BMC performs verification on the image file header, including the manufacturer, product, and checksum, and verifies whether the image matches [supports] the current upgrade environment (emphasis added).“).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dong into the combined teachings of Yao and Narayanan to include “the third header.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an image file header with a HPM format upgrade image and perform verification on the image file header when upgrading a server BMC to “better achieve a secure way to upgrade BMC” (Dong, paragraphs [0005 & 0007]).
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Narayanan as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 10,038,518 (hereinafter “Sun”).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yao discloses “wherein a format of the firmware updating file comprises a hardware platform management (HPM) format (paragraph [0047], “That is, the HPM format image file consists of HPM header information + traditional image information + HPM tail information (emphasis added).”), the first field corresponds to a component field in the hardware platform management format (paragraph [0022], “The image matching module is used to extract the image type [component field] from the parsed HPM format image [firmware updating file] […] (emphasis added).”), and the [program] determines whether the firmware updating file supports the first format according to the [image type] (paragraph [0022], “The image matching module is used to extract the image type from the parsed HPM format image [firmware updating file], determine whether it is a BIOS image [supports the first format], and whether the extracted model product feature information belongs to the BIOS image required by this model product (emphasis added).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
the first field comprises a reserved bit, and the first application programming interface determines whether the firmware updating file supports the first format according to the reserved bit.
However, Narayanan discloses:
the first application programming interface (paragraph [0030], “When the one or more internal API's [first application programming interface] retrieve the data from the data repositories, the one or more internal API's may be configured to disassociate the data from the internal network […] The internal API's may mask and delete personal identifiers associated with the data files to further provide data privacy protection (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Narayanan into the teaching of Yao to include “the first application programming interface.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an API in obtaining an identifier in order to mask it since “masking all personal information within the data files, may automatically reduce the cost of handling and managing of the masked data in an external environment because the de-sensitized data, disassociated from the internal network, may not entail advanced levels of authentication and security” (Narayanan, paragraphs [0030 & 0031]).
However, Sun discloses:
the first field comprises a reserved bit (col. 17 lines 38-43, ““[…] the legacy protocol defines one or bits in the one or more legacy fields as reserved. In some embodiments, the first communication protocol defines a modification of the one or more legacy fields such that one or more of the reserved bit(s) are utilized to distinguish among formats (emphasis added).”).
Sun is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of reserved bits and distinguishing among formats.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sun into the combined teachings of Yao and Narayanan to include “the first field comprises a reserved bit, and the first application programming interface determines whether the firmware updating file supports the first format according to the reserved bit.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a reserved bit to distinguish among formats to aid in a receiver making a “determination regarding the format of a received data unit so that the receiver can process the data unit according to the correct data unit format” making it “advantageous to distinguish amongst the multiple data unit formats early within a received data unit” (Sun, col. 8 lines 52-59 & col. 17 lines 38-43).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Narayanan as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 11,249,974 (hereinafter “Fuchs”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Yao discloses “the second field (paragraph [0041], “Extract the image type from the parsed HPM format image, determine whether it is a BIOS image, and determine whether the extracted model product feature information [second field] belongs to the BIOS image required by this model product (emphasis added).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second application obtains the identifier according to a byte in the second field.
However, Narayanan discloses:
the second application (paragraph [0036], “In some embodiments, when one or more data files include the same user, the centralized data conversion API may be configured to determine the fields in each file that may be associated with the user and create identical fictional data strings for each matching field in each file (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Narayanan into the teaching of Yao to include “the second application.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a centralized API, along with an internal API, in detecting fields and transmitting data to aid in centralizing a process, such as for converting sensitive data, in order to enable a uniform conversion for all data which may “enhance the accuracy and the clarity of the data to be tested” (Narayanan, paragraphs [0027 & 0041]).
However, Fuchs discloses:
wherein the [system] obtains the identifier according to a byte in the second field (abstract, “A system assigns a byte value to document identifiers in a table (emphasis added).”; col. 12 lines 6-9, “At block 1006, the key/value pairs in the partition are searched to identify one or more document identifiers that have an associated byte string that is included in a value range of the byte range associated with new byte string (emphasis added).”).
Fuchs is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of bytes to obtain an identifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fuchs into the combined teachings of Yao and Narayanan to include “wherein the second application obtains the identifier according to a byte in the second field.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain an identifier according to a byte by utilizing hashing technology, that “assigns a unique byte string to a document identifier,” which improves “conventional database software technologies that implement sortable key/value pairs with a hashing technology that can dynamically split tables and partitions with minimal user intervention” (Fuchs, col. 2 lines 50-52 & col. 4 lines 14-18).
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Narayanan as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of CN 106,598,632A (hereinafter “Mao”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Yao and Narayanan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the communication interface supports at least one of a serial peripheral interface and an integrated bus circuit.
However, Mao discloses:
wherein the communication interface supports at least one of a serial peripheral interface and an integrated bus circuit (paragraph [0060], “[…] wherein the MCU is connected to the storage medium and the FPGA through the Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) interface (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0061], “[…] it can communicate with the FPGA via the SPI interface, that is, load programs into the FPGA via the SPI interface (emphasis added).”).
Mao is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating firmware and the use of a serial peripheral interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mao into the combined teachings of Yao and Narayanan to include “wherein the communication interface supports at least one of a serial peripheral interface and an integrated bus circuit.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a serial peripheral interface “to achieve high-speed signal processing and optical module control” (Mao, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to electronic device Claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2013/0061252 (hereinafter “Bernbo”) discloses an API obtaining an identifier from a field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEVEN H HURUY whose telephone number is (571) 272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:45pm.
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, 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 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.
/F.H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191