DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on June 12, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are currently amended.
The objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claims 4, 16, and 18 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1-20 are maintained in view of the Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims and further explained hereinafter.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the 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.
The BRI of Claim 1 is a method for providing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a configuration file identifier to a cable modem; subsequent to providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem, providing, by the computing system, a configuration file to the cable modem, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems; receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier; in response to receiving the firmware file request from the cable modem, determining, by the computing system, whether a firmware of the cable modem is outdated based on data associated with the cable modem; and in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is outdated, providing, by the computing system, an updated firmware file to the cable modem, the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. 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 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) […] determining […] whether a firmware of the cable modem is outdated based on data associated with the cable modem; and
(b) in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is outdated […].
These recited steps, under the 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) a computing system comprising one or more computing devices.
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 limitations (a) and (b) in the context of the claim encompass a human evaluating data associated with a cable modem in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether a firmware of the cable modem is outdated. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance 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 One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) a computing system comprising one or more computing devices.
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 computing devices are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) […] providing […] an updated firmware file to the cable modem, the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional element (2) 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 providing an updated firmware file to a cable modem without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solutions to the identified problem of providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) providing […] a configuration file identifier to a cable modem;
(4) subsequent to providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem, providing […] a configuration file to the cable modem, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems; and
(5) receiving, […] from the cable modem, a firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional elements (3) to (5) 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 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(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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 judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) a computing system comprising one or more computing devices.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) […] providing […] an updated firmware file to the cable modem, the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional element (2) 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 solutions to the identified problem of providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) providing […] a configuration file identifier to a cable modem;
(4) subsequent to providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem, providing […] a configuration file to the cable modem, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems; and
(5) receiving, […] from the cable modem, a firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional elements (3) to (5) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are 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 send/receive configuration file and firmware file request. 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, only the idea of a solution or outcome, and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 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) in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the cable modem.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem comprises:
(b) receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a boot data read request;
(c) providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, boot data that comprises an IP address for the cable modem and the configuration file identifier; and
(d) storing, by the computing system, the data associated with the cable modem in a data store of the computing system, the data associated with the cable modem comprising the boot data and service profile data associated with the cable modem.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises:
(b) receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request;
(c) generating, by the computing system, the unique firmware file identifier associated with a firmware file, the unique firmware file identifier being different from existing firmware file identifiers associated with existing firmware files provided by the computing system to cable modems; and
(d) storing, by the computing system in the configuration file, the unique firmware file identifier associated with the firmware file.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises:
(b) receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request;
(c) determining, by the computing system, a randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the randomized firmware file identifier corresponding to the unique firmware file identifier; and
(d) providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, the configuration file, the configuration file comprising the randomized firmware file identifier.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein determining whether the firmware of the cable modem is outdated comprises:
(b) subsequent to receiving the firmware file request from the cable modem, determining, by the computing system, a current firmware version for the cable modem based on the service profile data;
(c) determining, by the computing system, a target firmware version for the cable modem based on the service profile data; and
(d) determining, by the computing system, whether the current firmware version matches the target firmware version.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein the service profile data comprises:
(b) vendor data associated with a vendor of the cable modem;
(c) cable modem identification data comprising a model number of the cable modem and data associated with a subscribed data rate of the cable modem; and
(d) cable modem firmware data associated with the firmware of the cable modem.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein determining the current firmware version for the cable modem comprises:
(b) determining, by the computing system, the current firmware version running on the cable modem based at least in part on the cable modem firmware data of the service profile data.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein determining the target firmware version for the cable modem comprises:
(b) determining, by the computing system, the target firmware version for the cable modem based at least in part on the cable modem identification data and the vendor data of the service profile data.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitations:
(a) in response to determining the current firmware version does not match the target firmware version, determining, by the computing system, the firmware of the cable modem is outdated; and
(b) in response to determining the current firmware version matches the target firmware version, determining, by the computing system, the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem comprises:
(b) generating, by the computing system, the updated firmware file based on the target firmware version;
(c) providing, by the computing system, the randomized firmware file identifier to the updated firmware file; and
(d) providing, by the computing system, the updated firmware file to the cable modem.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein the randomized firmware file identifier is a first randomized firmware file identifier, the method further comprising:
(b) subsequent to providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem, receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a second configuration file read request;
(c) determining, by the computing system, a second randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the second randomized firmware file identifier being different from the first randomized firmware file identifier; and
(d) providing, by the computing system, a second configuration file to the cable modem, the second configuration file comprising the second randomized firmware file identifier.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitations:
(a) subsequent to providing the second configuration file to the cable modem, receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a second firmware file request;
(b) determining, by the computing system, the current firmware version for the cable modem matches the target firmware version associated with the updated firmware file;
(c) in response to determining the current firmware version for the cable modem matches the target firmware version associated with the updated firmware file, determining, by the computing system, the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated; and
(d) in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the cable modem.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitations:
(a) in response to determining the current firmware version matches the target firmware version, generating, by the computing system, a firmware file error message; and
(b) providing, by the computing system, the firmware file error message to the cable modem.
Claims 4-10 and 12-14 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 under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 11-13 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 under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6 and 11-14 recite 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 under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 2-14 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 1-14 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • + • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 15 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.
The BRI of Claim 15 is a method for receiving, by a cable modem, a configuration file identifier from a computing system, the configuration file identifier corresponding to a configuration file for the cable modem; sending, by the cable modem to the computing system, a configuration file read request based on the configuration file identifier; receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, the configuration file, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier; determining, by the cable modem, the unique firmware file identifier does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system; and in response to determining the unique firmware file identifier does not match the existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file, sending, by the cable modem, a firmware file request to the computing system, the firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 15 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 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
(a) determining […] the unique firmware file identifier does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system; and
(b) in response to determining the unique firmware file identifier does not match the existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file […].
These recited steps, under the 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) a cable modem.
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 limitations (a) and (b) in the context of the claim encompass a human evaluating firmware file identifiers in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether a unique firmware file identifier matches an existing firmware file identifier. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance 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 One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) a cable modem.
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 cable modem is used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(2) receiving […] a configuration file identifier from a computing system, the configuration file identifier corresponding to a configuration file for the cable modem;
(3) sending, […] to the computing system, a configuration file read request based on the configuration file identifier;
(4) receiving, […] from the computing system, the configuration file, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier; and
(5) […] sending […] a firmware file request to the computing system, the firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional elements (2) to (5) 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 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(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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 judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) a cable modem.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(2) receiving […] a configuration file identifier from a computing system, the configuration file identifier corresponding to a configuration file for the cable modem;
(3) sending, […] to the computing system, a configuration file read request based on the configuration file identifier;
(4) receiving, […] from the computing system, the configuration file, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier; and
(5) […] sending […] a firmware file request to the computing system, the firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional elements (2) to (5) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are 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 send/receive configuration file and firmware file request. 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. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-18 are dependent on Claim 15, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein determining the unique firmware file identifier does not match the existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file comprises:
(b) determining, by the cable modem, a current firmware version of the cable modem based on a stored firmware file identifier stored in a data store of the cable modem, the current firmware version corresponding to a firmware of the cable modem;
(c) determining, by the cable modem, whether the stored firmware file identifier matches the unique firmware file identifier received in the configuration file from the computing system; and
(d) in response to determining the stored firmware file identifier does not match the unique firmware file identifier received in the configuration file, generating, by the cable modem, the firmware file request.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitations:
(a) receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, an updated firmware file, the updated firmware file comprising an updated firmware file identifier corresponding to the unique firmware file identifier;
(b) storing, by the cable modem, the updated firmware file identifier in a data store of the cable modem; and
(c) initiating, by the cable modem, a reboot process for the cable modem.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitations:
(a) receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, a firmware file error message;
(b) determining, by the computing system, based on the firmware file error message, that the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated; and
(c) proceeding, by the cable modem, with a boot process of the cable modem.
Claims 16 and 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 under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 16-18 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 under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 17 and 18 recite 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 under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 16-18 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 15 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 15-18 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • + • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the 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.
The BRI of Claim 19 is a computing system for providing a configuration file identifier to a cable modem; subsequently, providing a configuration file to the cable modem, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems; receiving a firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier from the cable modem; in response to receiving the firmware file request, determining whether a firmware of the cable modem is outdated based on data associated with the cable modem; and in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is outdated, providing an updated firmware file to the cable modem, the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 19 is directed to a computing system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations:
(a) […] determine whether a firmware of the cable modem is outdated based on data associated with the cable modem; and
(b) in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is outdated […].
These recited steps, under the 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) one or more computing devices comprising one or more processor devices operable to.
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 limitations (a) and (b) in the context of the claim encompass a human evaluating data associated with a cable modem in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether a firmware of the cable modem is outdated. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance 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 One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) one or more computing devices comprising one or more processor devices operable to.
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 computing devices and processor devices are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) […] provide an updated firmware file to the cable modem, the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional element (2) 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 providing an updated firmware file to a cable modem without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solutions to the identified problem of providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) provide a configuration file identifier to a cable modem;
(4) subsequently, provide a configuration file to the cable modem, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems;
(5) receive a firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier from the cable modem; and
(6) in response to receiving the firmware file request […].
The additional elements (3) to (6) 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 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(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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 judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) one or more computing devices comprising one or more processor devices operable to.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) […] provide an updated firmware file to the cable modem, the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
The additional element (2) 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 solutions to the identified problem of providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) provide a configuration file identifier to a cable modem;
(4) subsequently, provide a configuration file to the cable modem, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems;
(5) receive a firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier from the cable modem; and
(6) in response to receiving the firmware file request […].
The additional elements (3) to (6) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are 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 send/receive configuration file and firmware file request. 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, only the idea of a solution or outcome, and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is dependent on Claim 19, but does not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein the one or more computing devices are further operable to:
(b) in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, provide a firmware file error message to the cable modem.
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 under Step 2A, Prong One (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 data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
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.
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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0074061 (hereinafter “Averbuch”) in view of US 2002/0052927 (hereinafter “Park”), US 2018/0088932 (hereinafter “Ouarraoui”), and US 2023/0205507 (hereinafter “Lai”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Averbuch is generally directed to managing firmware updates for a plurality of devices within a wireless network (specification, paragraph [0001]). And Ouarraoui is generally directed to a multi-platform installer for installing software applications on different computing platforms (specification, paragraph [0001]). And Lai is generally directed to updating firmware online (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Park is generally directed to a cable modem that is capable of shortening the time required for initializing a cable modem by downloading a file for initializing the cable modem (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Averbuch discloses:
A method (paragraph [0015], “Embodiments provide a method for managing firmware updates for a plurality of devices within a wireless network.”), comprising:
receiving, by the computing system (Figure 2: 255 and 270) from the [device] (Figure 2: 280), a firmware file request comprising the […] firmware file identifier (paragraph [0060]1, “[…] the firmware management component 270 transmits a request to the device to determine the most recent version of the firmware for the device. In such an embodiment, the device could be configured to query a remote data store (e.g., a database maintained by the manufacturer of the device) to determine the most recent firmware version for the device [a firmware file request comprising the […] firmware file identifier] and could transmit the most recent version information to the firmware management component 270 (emphasis added).”);
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Averbuch discloses that the most recent version information of the firmware for the device is transmitted to the firmware management component. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the firmware management component receives the most recent version information of the firmware for the device.
in response to receiving the firmware file request from the [device], determining, by the computing system (Figure 2: 255 and 270), whether a firmware of the [device] is outdated based on data associated with the [device] (paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update [determining {…} whether a firmware of the {device} is outdated based on data associated with the {device}].”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”); and
in response to determining the firmware of the [device] is outdated, providing, by the computing system (Figure 2: 255 and 270), an updated firmware file to the [device] (paragraph [0075], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could be configured to retrieve an updated version of the firmware for the device (e.g., in executable form) and to remotely install the updated version of the firmware onto the device (e.g., by running the executable) [providing {…} an updated firmware file to the {device}].”).
Averbuch discloses “a device,” but Averbuch does not explicitly disclose:
a cable modem;
providing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a configuration file identifier to a cable modem; and
subsequent to providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem, providing, by the computing system, a configuration file to the cable modem […].
However, Park discloses:
a cable modem (Figure 2: 200);
providing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a configuration file identifier to a cable modem (paragraph [0066], “When the ranging process is successfully completed, the cable modem 200 receives various configuration file name information together with other information from the external dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server 11 through the cable modem termination system 20, by using the DHCP (step S11) (emphasis added).”); and
subsequent to providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem, providing, by the computing system, a configuration file to the cable modem […] (paragraph [0070], “Upon comparison, if the received configuration file name is different from the fine names stored in the non-volatile memory 270 (step S15), it is determined that there is a new configuration file and the received configuration file is downloaded from the TFTP server (step S16), and then the non-volatile memory 270 is updated with the downloaded configuration file name and the configuration file version information (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0071], “The message processor 230 outputs the MAP information according to the updated configuration file to the upstream unit 220, and then, the upstream unit 220 generates/modulates the upstream signal according to the inputted MAP information, transmits it to the cable modem termination system 100, thereby performing the registration process of the cable modem (step S18) (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Averbuch and Park are both analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Park into the teaching of Averbuch to include “a cable modem; providing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a configuration file identifier to a cable modem; and subsequent to providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem, providing, by the computing system, a configuration file to the cable modem […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to initialize a cable modem for transmitting and receiving various data such as an Internet data at a high speed by using a cable TV network, which connects a user personal computer and the cable TV network (Park, paragraphs [0005] and [0048]).
The combination of Averbuch and Park discloses “cable modems,” but the combination of Averbuch and Park does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the configuration file comprising a […] firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems.
However, Ouarraoui discloses:
[…] the configuration file comprising a […] firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to [devices] (paragraph [0133]2, “At step 320, the system can read firmware versions from the vendor BMC. At step 322, the system can compare the read firmware version to the expected version contained in the configuration file (e.g., XML file). The configuration file can contain the relevant firmware settings for every platform in the respective <firmware> section of the configuration files (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0134], “At step 324, the system can determine if the read firmware version is the same as the expected firmware version. If the read firmware version is not the same as the expected firmware version [does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file], at step 326, the system can launch the vendor firmware updated utility with the expected firmware version.”).
2Examiner’s Remarks: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “firmware file identifier” includes firmware file version, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “firmware file identifier,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Ouarraoui’s firmware version. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ouarraoui is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Ouarraoui into the combined teachings of Averbuch and Park to include “[…] the configuration file comprising a […] firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update a firmware of a cable modem to a version required to run software associated with the cable modem (Ouarraoui, paragraph [0050]).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, and Ouarraoui discloses “a […] firmware file identifier,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, and Ouarraoui does not explicitly disclose:
a unique firmware file identifier; and
the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
However, Lai discloses:
a unique firmware file identifier (paragraph [0037], “The electronic device 170 is connected to the update management end 150 and the firmware providing end 160, and the electronic device 170 comprises the unique feature 141, wherein the unique feature 141 of the security computing end 140 and the electronic device 170 can be an [sic] universally unique identifier (UUID), a device model, or a certificate of the electronic device 170 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0051], “step S360: the security computing end 140 decrypting the encrypted new version firmware file 111 into a new version firmware file, and encrypting the new version firmware file with a unique feature 141 to generate an exclusive encrypted new version firmware file 142, and sending the exclusive encrypted new version firmware file 142 to the firmware production server 130 […] (emphasis added).”); and
the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier (paragraph [0037], “The electronic device 170 is connected to the update management end 150 and the firmware providing end 160, and the electronic device 170 comprises the unique feature 141, wherein the unique feature 141 of the security computing end 140 and the electronic device 170 can be an [sic] universally unique identifier (UUID), a device model, or a certificate of the electronic device 170 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0046], “Please refer to FIG. 3 for an embodiment of a flow chart of the processing method for updating firmware online of the invention […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0051], “step S360: the security computing end 140 decrypting the encrypted new version firmware file 111 into a new version firmware file, and encrypting the new version firmware file with a unique feature 141 to generate an exclusive encrypted new version firmware file 142, and sending the exclusive encrypted new version firmware file 142 to the firmware production server 130 […] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Lai is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Lai into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, and Ouarraoui to include “a unique firmware file identifier; and the updated firmware file comprising the unique firmware file identifier.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate an encrypted new version firmware file and a new version firmware information (Lai, paragraph [0006]).
Claim 19 is a computing system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai as applied to Claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of US 2019/0146773 (hereinafter “Attard”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Attard is generally directed to updating computer applications (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai does not explicitly disclose:
in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the cable modem.
However, Attard discloses:
in response to determining the firmware of the [device] is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the [device] (paragraph [0066], “The update manager 118 may subsequently determine whether the currently received release request is for a new version of the identified computer application, at step 406. To this end, the update manager 118 may compare the received version identifier with the latest/current version identifier for that computer application stored in the information database 116. If at step 406, the update manager 118 determines that the version identifier is equal to or lower than the latest stored version number for the computer application, the process proceeds to step 408 where the update system generates an error message and forwards the error message to the update system client. The error message in one example may notify the developer that the version already exists.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Attard into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai to include “in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to notify a user of a cable modem that an updated firmware version already exists in the cable modem (Attard, paragraph [0066]).
Claim 20 is a computing system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0248994 (hereinafter “Singh01”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Singh01 is generally directed to denial of dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) internet protocol (IP) address allocation to an unauthorized node via cross secure boot verification (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Singh01 is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem” and “providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, the configuration file identifier,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai does not explicitly disclose:
wherein providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem comprises:
receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a boot data read request;
providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, boot data that comprises an IP address for the cable modem and the configuration file identifier; and
storing, by the computing system, the data associated with the cable modem in a data store of the computing system, the data associated with the cable modem comprising the boot data and service profile data associated with the cable modem.
However, Singh01 discloses:
receiving, by the computing system from the [device], a boot data read request (paragraph [0053], “At 710, a system (e.g., 110) comprising a processor (e.g., corresponding to processing component (330)) enables storage of a secure boot storage certificate in a secure boot data store of a client device, in which the secure boot storage certificate has been signed by a KEK that has been stored in a network boot data store of a network switch device of a network.”);
providing, by the computing system to the [device], boot data that comprises an IP address for the [device] […] (paragraph [0054], “[…] a DHCP offer packet that has been transmitted from a DHCP device (e.g., server) from being forwarded to the client device pending a determination of whether the secure boot storage certificate has been signed by the KEK that has been stored in the network boot data store of the network switch device, in which the DHCP device assigns respective IP addresses to client devices to facilitate respective accesses, via the client devices using the respective IP addresses, of the network; otherwise flow returns to 720.”); and
storing, by the computing system, the data associated with the [device] in a data store of the computing system, the data associated with the [device] comprising the boot data and service profile data associated with the [device] (paragraph [0050], “In response to determining that the secure boot storage certificate has been signed by the KEK that has been stored in the network boot data store, the secure boot storage authentication component considers the device as a valid node, e.g., corresponding to an authorized user, and forwards the DHCP offer packet, which has been blocked from reaching the device, to the device to facilitate an assignment, by the DHCP server via DHCP protocol(s), of an IP address to the device, e.g., upon the DHCP server receiving a DHCP request packet from the device, and upon the DHCP server sending, based on the DHCP request packet, a DHCP acknowledgement (ACK) packet to the device.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Singh01 is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Singh01 into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai to include “wherein providing the configuration file identifier to the cable modem comprises: receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a boot data read request; providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, boot data that comprises an IP address for the cable modem and the configuration file identifier; and storing, by the computing system, the data associated with the cable modem in a data store of the computing system, the data associated with the cable modem comprising the boot data and service profile data associated with the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable storage of a secure boot storage certificate in a secure boot data store of a client device (Singh01, paragraph [0017]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises:
receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request.
However, Park discloses:
wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises:
receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request (paragraph [0066], “When the ranging process is successfully completed, the cable modem 200 receives various configuration file name information together with other information from the external dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server 11 through the cable modem termination system 20, by using the DHCP (step S11).”; paragraph [0068], “When the parsing is completely performed, the CPU 260 reads the second configuration file name of the second configuration file name information which it has downloaded in the previous initializing process and the second configuration file version information from the non-volatile memory (NVM) 270 (step S13).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Park is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Park into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 to include “wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises: receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to initialize a cable modem for transmitting and receiving various data such as an Internet data at a high speed by using a cable TV network, which connects a user personal computer and the cable TV network (Park, paragraphs [0005] and [0048]).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “cable modems” and “the unique firmware file identifier,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Lai, and Singh01 does not explicitly disclose:
generating, by the computing system, the […] firmware file identifier associated with a firmware file, the […] firmware file identifier being different from existing firmware file identifiers associated with existing firmware files provided by the computing system to cable modems; and
storing, by the computing system in the configuration file, the […] firmware file identifier associated with the firmware file.
However, Ouarraoui discloses:
generating, by the computing system, the […] firmware file identifier associated with a firmware file, the […] firmware file identifier being different from existing firmware file identifiers associated with existing firmware files provided by the computing system to [devices] (paragraph [0050], “The firmware versions can be determined by using each respective vendor's board management controller interface, which can be abstracted using an SmcPlatform interface. Firmware versions can be read from the server platform and compared with the expected version contained in the configuration file. If the version on the platform is not consistent with the expected version, then the vendor firmware program tool can be launched with the required version updating the firmware to the version required to run the software associated with the software tool.”); and
storing, by the computing system in the configuration file, the […] firmware file identifier associated with the firmware file (paragraph [0051], “The configuration file can contain the relevant firmware settings for every platform in the respective <firmware> section of the configuration files.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ouarraoui is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Ouarraoui into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Lai, and Singh01 to include “generating, by the computing system, the […] firmware file identifier associated with a firmware file, the […] firmware file identifier being different from existing firmware file identifiers associated with existing firmware files provided by the computing system to [devices]; and storing, by the computing system in the configuration file, the […] firmware file identifier associated with the firmware file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update a firmware of a cable modem to a version required to run software associated with the cable modem (Ouarraoui, paragraph [0050]).
Claims 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2016/0062760 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Zhang is generally directed to complying a router management application with a router firmware (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Zhang is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises:
receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request; and
providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, the configuration file […].
However, Park discloses:
wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises:
receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request (paragraph [0066], “When the ranging process is successfully completed, the cable modem 200 receives various configuration file name information together with other information from the external dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server 11 through the cable modem termination system 20, by using the DHCP (step S11).”; paragraph [0068], “When the parsing is completely performed, the CPU 260 reads the second configuration file name of the second configuration file name information which it has downloaded in the previous initializing process and the second configuration file version information from the non-volatile memory (NVM) 270 (step S13).”); and
providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, the configuration file […] (paragraph [0070], “Upon comparison, if the received configuration file name is different from the fine names stored in the non-volatile memory 270 (step S15), it is determined that there is a new configuration file and the received configuration file is downloaded from the TFTP server (step S16), and then the non-volatile memory 270 is updated with the downloaded configuration file name and the configuration file version information.”; paragraph [0071], “The message processor 230 outputs the MAP information according to the updated configuration file to the upstream unit 220, and then, the upstream unit 220 generates/modulates the upstream signal according to the inputted MAP information, transmits it to the cable modem termination system 100, thereby performing the registration process of the cable modem (step S18).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Park is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Park into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 to include “wherein providing the configuration file to the cable modem comprises: receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a configuration file read request; and providing, by the computing system to the cable modem, the configuration file […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to initialize a cable modem for transmitting and receiving various data such as an Internet data at a high speed by using a cable TV network, which connects a user personal computer and the cable TV network (Park, paragraphs [0005] and [0048]).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” “the unique firmware file identifier,” and “the configuration file comprising the […] firmware file identifier,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 does not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the computing system, a randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the randomized firmware file identifier corresponding to the […] firmware file identifier.
However, Zhang discloses:
determining, by the computing system, a randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the randomized firmware file identifier corresponding to the […] firmware file identifier (paragraph [0060], “[…] one firmware version is selected randomly from the firmware versions of the router compatible with the router management application, particularly, the lowest firmware version or the highest firmware version is selected, and then the selected firmware version is used as the target version of the router firmware compatible with the router management application.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Zhang is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Zhang into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 to include “determining, by the computing system, a randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the randomized firmware file identifier corresponding to the […] firmware file identifier.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize randomization in the selection of a firmware version as a target firmware version (Zhang, paragraph [0060]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and Averbuch further discloses:
wherein determining whether the firmware of the [device] is outdated comprises:
subsequent to receiving the firmware file request from the [device], determining, by the computing system, a current firmware version for the [device] based on the service profile data (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”);
determining, by the computing system, a target firmware version for the [device] based on the service profile data (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”); and
determining, by the computing system, whether the current firmware version matches the target firmware version (paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and Averbuch further discloses:
in response to determining the current firmware version does not match the target firmware version, determining, by the computing system, the firmware of the [device] is outdated (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”); and
in response to determining the current firmware version matches the target firmware version, determining, by the computing system, the firmware of the [device] is not outdated (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of US 8,977,899 (hereinafter “Schecter”) and US 2009/0125957 (hereinafter “Singh02”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Schecter is generally directed to assisted device recovery (Abstract). And Singh02 is generally directed to cable modem termination system (CMTS) software (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Schecter and Singh02 are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and Averbuch further discloses:
wherein the service profile data comprises:
[device] firmware data associated with the firmware of the [device] (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
vendor data associated with a vendor of the cable modem; and
cable modem identification data comprising a model number of the cable modem […].
However, Schecter discloses:
vendor data associated with a vendor of the cable modem (col. 4 lines 60-64, “When cable modem 220 is queried for the ‘sysDescr’ object, cable modem 220 may return the hardware version, vendor name, boot ROM version, software version, and model number of cable modem 220.”); and
cable modem identification data comprising a model number of the cable modem […] (col. 4 lines 60-64, “When cable modem 220 is queried for the ‘sysDescr’ object, cable modem 220 may return the hardware version, vendor name, boot ROM version, software version, and model number of cable modem 220.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Schecter is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Schecter into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang to include “vendor data associated with a vendor of the cable modem; and cable modem identification data comprising a model number of the cable modem […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify vendor name and model number of a cable modem.
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Schecter does not explicitly disclose:
cable modem identification data comprising […] data associated with a subscribed data rate of the cable modem.
However, Singh02 discloses:
cable modem identification data comprising […] data associated with a subscribed data rate of the cable modem (paragraph [0021], “The configuration file contains various quality of service information such as the data rate or speed cable modem 108 will operate with.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Singh02 is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Singh02 into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Schecter to include “cable modem identification data comprising […] data associated with a subscribed data rate of the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify data rate or speed of a cable modem.
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and Averbuch further discloses:
wherein determining the current firmware version for the [device] comprises:
determining, by the computing system, the current firmware version running on the [device] based at least in part on the [device] firmware data of the service profile data (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, Schecter, and Singh02 discloses “the vendor data of the service profile data,” and Averbuch further discloses:
wherein determining the target firmware version for the [device] comprises:
determining, by the computing system, the target firmware version for the [device] based at least in part on the [device] identification data […] (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0056], “[…] the firmware management component 270 may assign a unique identifier to each of the identified devices so that the devices are individually distinguishable. As an example, the firmware management component 270 could maintain a list of identified devices, where each device is identified by its media access control ("MAC") address.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2007/0250830 (hereinafter “Holmberg”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Holmberg is generally directed to updating firmware in a number of electronic devices connected to a data network (Abstract). Thus, Holmberg is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem comprises:
providing, by the computing system, the randomized firmware file identifier to the updated firmware file.
However, Zhang discloses:
providing, by the computing system, the randomized firmware file identifier to the updated firmware file (paragraph [0060], “[…] one firmware version is selected randomly from the firmware versions of the router compatible with the router management application, particularly, the lowest firmware version or the highest firmware version is selected, and then the selected firmware version is used as the target version of the router firmware compatible with the router management application.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Zhang is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Zhang into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Singh01 to include “wherein providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem comprises: providing, by the computing system, the randomized firmware file identifier to the updated firmware file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize randomization in the selection of a firmware version as a target firmware version (Zhang, paragraph [0060]).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
generating, by the computing system, the updated firmware file based on the target firmware version; and
providing, by the computing system, the updated firmware file to the cable modem.
However, Holmberg discloses:
generating, by the computing system, the updated firmware file based on the target firmware version (paragraph [0066], “Secondly, step 202, when the first electronic device has been customized, a firmware update file generator is downloaded and executed in said single electronic device 104A in order to generate a firmware update file.”; paragraph [0138], “When creating a new version of the generated custom firmware version, the new version must be generated from the previously generated custom firmware version.”); and
providing, by the computing system, the updated firmware file to the [device] (paragraph [0066], “Thirdly, step 204, the generated firmware update file is transmitted to all, or a number of, the other electronic devices 104B-104F of the system 100.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Holmberg is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Holmberg into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang to include “generating, by the computing system, the updated firmware file based on the target firmware version; and providing, by the computing system, the updated firmware file to the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare and program a customized firmware for a cable modem (Holmberg, paragraph [0009]).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “subsequent to providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Holmberg does not explicitly disclose:
subsequent to providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem, receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a second configuration file read request; and
providing, by the computing system, a second configuration file to the cable modem […].
However, Park discloses:
[…] receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a second configuration file read request (paragraph [0066], “When the ranging process is successfully completed, the cable modem 200 receives various configuration file name information together with other information from the external dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server 11 through the cable modem termination system 20, by using the DHCP (step S11).”; paragraph [0068], “When the parsing is completely performed, the CPU 260 reads the second configuration file name of the second configuration file name information which it has downloaded in the previous initializing process and the second configuration file version information from the non-volatile memory (NVM) 270 (step S13).”); and
providing, by the computing system, a second configuration file to the cable modem […] (paragraph [0070], “Upon comparison, if the received configuration file name is different from the fine names stored in the non-volatile memory 270 (step S15), it is determined that there is a new configuration file and the received configuration file is downloaded from the TFTP server (step S16), and then the non-volatile memory 270 is updated with the downloaded configuration file name and the configuration file version information.”; paragraph [0071], “The message processor 230 outputs the MAP information according to the updated configuration file to the upstream unit 220, and then, the upstream unit 220 generates/modulates the upstream signal according to the inputted MAP information, transmits it to the cable modem termination system 100, thereby performing the registration process of the cable modem (step S18).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Park is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Park into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Holmberg to include “subsequent to providing the updated firmware file to the cable modem, receiving, by the computing system from the cable modem, a second configuration file read request; and providing, by the computing system, a second configuration file to the cable modem […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to initialize a cable modem for transmitting and receiving various data such as an Internet data at a high speed by using a cable TV network, which connects a user personal computer and the cable TV network (Park, paragraphs [0005] and [0048]).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Holmberg does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the randomized firmware file identifier is a first randomized firmware file identifier;
determining, by the computing system, a second randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the second randomized firmware file identifier being different from the first randomized firmware file identifier; and
[…] the second configuration file comprising the second randomized firmware file identifier.
However, Zhang discloses:
wherein the randomized firmware file identifier is a first randomized firmware file identifier (paragraph [0060], “[…] one firmware version is selected randomly from the firmware versions of the router compatible with the router management application, particularly, the lowest firmware version or the highest firmware version is selected, and then the selected firmware version is used as the target version of the router firmware compatible with the router management application.”);
determining, by the computing system, a second randomized firmware file identifier for the [device], the second randomized firmware file identifier being different from the first randomized firmware file identifier (paragraph [0060], “[…] one firmware version is selected randomly from the firmware versions of the router compatible with the router management application, particularly, the lowest firmware version or the highest firmware version is selected, and then the selected firmware version is used as the target version of the router firmware compatible with the router management application.”); and
[…] the second configuration file comprising the second randomized firmware file identifier (paragraph [0060], “[…] one firmware version is selected randomly from the firmware versions of the router compatible with the router management application, particularly, the lowest firmware version or the highest firmware version is selected, and then the selected firmware version is used as the target version of the router firmware compatible with the router management application.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Zhang is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Zhang into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Holmberg to include “wherein the randomized firmware file identifier is a first randomized firmware file identifier; determining, by the computing system, a second randomized firmware file identifier for the cable modem, the second randomized firmware file identifier being different from the first randomized firmware file identifier; and […] the second configuration file comprising the second randomized firmware file identifier.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize randomization in the selection of a firmware version as a target firmware version (Zhang, paragraph [0060]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Holmberg as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2019/0146773 (hereinafter “Attard”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Attard is generally directed to updating computer applications (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 12 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “subsequent to providing the second configuration file to the cable modem,” and Averbuch further discloses:
[…] receiving, by the computing system from the [device], a second firmware file request (paragraph [0060]1, “[…] the firmware management component 270 transmits a request to the device to determine the most recent version of the firmware for the device. In such an embodiment, the device could be configured to query a remote data store (e.g., a database maintained by the manufacturer of the device) to determine the most recent firmware version for the device and could transmit the most recent version information to the firmware management component 270.”);
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Averbuch discloses that the most recent version information of the firmware for the device is transmitted to the firmware management component. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the firmware management component receives the most recent version information of the firmware for the device.
determining, by the computing system, the current firmware version for the cable modem matches the target firmware version associated with the updated firmware file (paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”); and
in response to determining the current firmware version for the cable modem matches the target firmware version associated with the updated firmware file, determining, by the computing system, the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated (paragraph [0046], “The data store 215 contains information 230 on firmware versions and firmware update information for various devices. In one embodiment, the data store 215 is implemented as a database storing firmware versioning information.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the firmware management component 270 could determine whether an update is available for device 1 275(1) by comparing the current version of firmware 280(1) installed on the device with the most recently released version of the firmware 225(1) for the device. Thus, in the current example, the firmware management component 270 determines that the device 1 275(1) is currently running firmware version ‘2.0.15,’ but the more recent firmware version of ‘2.0.17’ is available. As such, the firmware management component 270 could flag device 1 275(1) for a firmware update.”; paragraph [0061], “Upon retrieving the most recent firmware version for the device, the firmware management component 270 could determine whether the firmware update is available for the device by comparing the version of the firmware currently installed on the device with the version of the most recently released firmware.”).
The combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Holmberg does not explicitly disclose:
in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the cable modem.
However, Attard discloses:
in response to determining the firmware of the [device] is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the [device] (paragraph [0066], “The update manager 118 may subsequently determine whether the currently received release request is for a new version of the identified computer application, at step 406. To this end, the update manager 118 may compare the received version identifier with the latest/current version identifier for that computer application stored in the information database 116. If at step 406, the update manager 118 determines that the version identifier is equal to or lower than the latest stored version number for the computer application, the process proceeds to step 408 where the update system generates an error message and forwards the error message to the update system client. The error message in one example may notify the developer that the version already exists.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Attard into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, Zhang, and Holmberg to include “in response to determining the firmware of the cable modem is not outdated, providing, by the computing system, a firmware file error message to the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to notify a user of a cable modem that an updated firmware version already exists in the cable modem (Attard, paragraph [0066]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbuch in view of Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2019/0146773 (hereinafter “Attard”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Attard is generally directed to updating computer applications (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated; and the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
in response to determining the current firmware version matches the target firmware version, generating, by the computing system, a firmware file error message; and
providing, by the computing system, the firmware file error message to the cable modem.
However, Attard discloses:
in response to determining the current firmware version matches the target firmware version, generating, by the computing system, a firmware file error message (paragraph [0066], “The update manager 118 may subsequently determine whether the currently received release request is for a new version of the identified computer application, at step 406. To this end, the update manager 118 may compare the received version identifier with the latest/current version identifier for that computer application stored in the information database 116. If at step 406, the update manager 118 determines that the version identifier is equal to or lower than the latest stored version number for the computer application, the process proceeds to step 408 where the update system generates an error message and forwards the error message to the update system client. The error message in one example may notify the developer that the version already exists.”); and
providing, by the computing system, the firmware file error message to the [device] (paragraph [0066], “The update manager 118 may subsequently determine whether the currently received release request is for a new version of the identified computer application, at step 406. To this end, the update manager 118 may compare the received version identifier with the latest/current version identifier for that computer application stored in the information database 116. If at step 406, the update manager 118 determines that the version identifier is equal to or lower than the latest stored version number for the computer application, the process proceeds to step 408 where the update system generates an error message and forwards the error message to the update system client. The error message in one example may notify the developer that the version already exists.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Attard into the combined teachings of Averbuch, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, Singh01, and Zhang to include “in response to determining the current firmware version matches the target firmware version, generating, by the computing system, a firmware file error message; and providing, by the computing system, the firmware file error message to the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to notify a user of a cable modem that an updated firmware version already exists in the cable modem (Attard, paragraph [0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0264730 (hereinafter “Dattagupta”) in view of US 2002/0052927 (hereinafter “Park”), US 2018/0088932 (hereinafter “Ouarraoui”), and US 2023/0205507 (hereinafter “Lai”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Dattagupta is generally directed to a client device configured to connect with a home network (specification, paragraph [0003]). And Ouarraoui is generally directed to a multi-platform installer for installing software applications on different computing platforms (specification, paragraph [0001]). And Lai is generally directed to updating firmware online (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Park is generally directed to a cable modem that is capable of shortening the time required for initializing a cable modem by downloading a file for initializing the cable modem (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 15, Dattagupta discloses:
A method (paragraph [0019], “One example embodiment of the present invention sets forth a method […].”), comprising:
determining, by the [device], the unique firmware file identifier does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system (paragraph [0066], “At step 340 and as shown in FIG. 3E, a client device 130(N) may be configured to determine whether the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date. In one embodiment, the client device 130(N) may include a firmware upgrade module 268 configured to compare a version number associated with the firmware installed on the client device to a version number associated with new firmware available on a remote server of an external network (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0067], “Returning now to step 340, if the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date [determining, by the [device], the unique firmware file identifier does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system], then the method 300 proceeds to step 344 where the client device 130(N) downloads the new firmware version and installs the new firmware version on the client device 130(N) (emphasis added).”); and
in response to determining the unique firmware file identifier does not match the existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file, sending, by the [device], a firmware file request to the computing system (paragraph [0067]1, “Returning now to step 340, if the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date, then the method 300 proceeds to step 344 where the client device 130(N) downloads the new firmware version and installs the new firmware version on the client device 130(N) (emphasis added).”).
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Dattagupta discloses that the client device downloads the new firmware version. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the client device sends a file request for the new firmware version in order to download it.
Dattagupta discloses “a device,” but Dattagupta does not explicitly disclose:
a cable modem;
receiving, by a cable modem, a configuration file identifier from a computing system, the configuration file identifier corresponding to a configuration file for the cable modem;
sending, by the cable modem to the computing system, a configuration file read request based on the configuration file identifier; and
receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, the configuration file, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier.
However, Park discloses:
a cable modem (Figure 2: 200);
receiving, by a cable modem, a configuration file identifier from a computing system, the configuration file identifier corresponding to a configuration file for the cable modem (paragraph [0066], “When the ranging process is successfully completed, the cable modem 200 receives various configuration file name information together with other information from the external dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server 11 through the cable modem termination system 20, by using the DHCP (step S11) (emphasis added).”);
sending, by the cable modem to the computing system, a configuration file read request based on the configuration file identifier (paragraph [0066], “When the ranging process is successfully completed, the cable modem 200 receives various configuration file name information together with other information from the external dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server 11 through the cable modem termination system 20, by using the DHCP (step S11) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0068]2, “When the parsing is completely performed, the CPU 260 reads the second configuration file name of the second configuration file name information which it has downloaded in the previous initializing process and the second configuration file version information from the non-volatile memory (NVM) 270 (step S13) (emphasis added).”); and
2Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Park discloses that the CPU reads the second configuration file name of the second configuration file name information. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the second configuration file read request is sent to the CPU in order for it to read the second configuration file.
receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, the configuration file (paragraph [0070], “Upon comparison, if the received configuration file name is different from the fine names stored in the non-volatile memory 270 (step S15), it is determined that there is a new configuration file and the received configuration file is downloaded from the TFTP server (step S16), and then the non-volatile memory 270 is updated with the downloaded configuration file name and the configuration file version information (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0071], “The message processor 230 outputs the MAP information according to the updated configuration file to the upstream unit 220, and then, the upstream unit 220 generates/modulates the upstream signal according to the inputted MAP information, transmits it to the cable modem termination system 100, thereby performing the registration process of the cable modem (step S18) (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Dattagupta and Park are both analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Park into the teaching of Dattagupta to include “a cable modem; receiving, by a cable modem, a configuration file identifier from a computing system, the configuration file identifier corresponding to a configuration file for the cable modem; sending, by the cable modem to the computing system, a configuration file read request based on the configuration file identifier; and receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, the configuration file, the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to initialize a cable modem for transmitting and receiving various data such as an Internet data at a high speed by using a cable TV network, which connects a user personal computer and the cable TV network (Park, paragraphs [0005] and [0048]).
The combination of Dattagupta and Park does not explicitly disclose:
the configuration file comprising a unique firmware file identifier.
However, Ouarraoui discloses:
the configuration file comprising a […] firmware file identifier (paragraph [0133]3, “At step 320, the system can read firmware versions from the vendor BMC. At step 322, the system can compare the read firmware version to the expected version contained in the configuration file (e.g., XML file). The configuration file can contain the relevant firmware settings for every platform in the respective <firmware> section of the configuration files (emphasis added).”).
3Examiner’s Remarks: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “firmware file identifier” includes firmware file version, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “firmware file identifier,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Ouarraoui’s firmware version. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ouarraoui is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Ouarraoui into the combined teachings of Dattagupta and Park to include “the configuration file comprising a […] firmware file identifier.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update a firmware of a cable modem to a version required to run software associated with the cable modem (Ouarraoui, paragraph [0050]).
The combination of Dattagupta, Park, and Ouarraoui discloses “a […] firmware file identifier” and “the firmware file request,” but the combination of Dattagupta, Park, and Ouarraoui does not explicitly disclose:
a unique firmware file identifier; and
the firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.
However, Lai discloses:
a unique firmware file identifier (paragraph [0037], “The electronic device 170 is connected to the update management end 150 and the firmware providing end 160, and the electronic device 170 comprises the unique feature 141, wherein the unique feature 141 of the security computing end 140 and the electronic device 170 can be an [sic] universally unique identifier (UUID), a device model, or a certificate of the electronic device 170 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0047], “step S310: the electronic device 170 sending a download request to the update management end 150 […].”; paragraph [0051], “step S360: the security computing end 140 decrypting the encrypted new version firmware file 111 into a new version firmware file, and encrypting the new version firmware file with a unique feature 141 to generate an exclusive encrypted new version firmware file 142, and sending the exclusive encrypted new version firmware file 142 to the firmware production server 130 […] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Lai is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Lai into the combined teachings of Dattagupta, Park, and Ouarraoui to include “a unique firmware file identifier; and the firmware file request comprising the unique firmware file identifier.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to generate an encrypted new version firmware file and a new version firmware information (Lai, paragraph [0006]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattagupta in view of Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2013/0198730 (hereinafter “Munireddy”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Munireddy is generally directed to updating firmware residing on devices of a storage system (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Munireddy is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 16, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and Dattagupta further discloses:
wherein determining the unique firmware file identifier does not match the existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file comprises:
determining, by the [device], a current firmware version of the [device] […], the current firmware version corresponding to a firmware of the [device] (paragraph [0066], “At step 340 and as shown in FIG. 3E, a client device 130(N) may be configured to determine whether the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date. In one embodiment, the client device 130(N) may include a firmware upgrade module 268 configured to compare a version number associated with the firmware installed on the client device to a version number associated with new firmware available on a remote server of an external network.”);
determining, by the [device], whether the stored firmware file identifier matches the unique firmware file identifier received in the configuration file from the computing system (paragraph [0066], “At step 340 and as shown in FIG. 3E, a client device 130(N) may be configured to determine whether the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date. In one embodiment, the client device 130(N) may include a firmware upgrade module 268 configured to compare a version number associated with the firmware installed on the client device to a version number associated with new firmware available on a remote server of an external network.”; paragraph [0067], “Returning now to step 340, if the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date, then the method 300 proceeds to step 344 where the client device 130(N) downloads the new firmware version and installs the new firmware version on the client device 130(N).”); and
in response to determining the stored firmware file identifier does not match the unique firmware file identifier received in the configuration file, generating, by the [device], the firmware file request (paragraph [0067]1, “Returning now to step 340, if the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date, then the method 300 proceeds to step 344 where the client device 130(N) downloads the new firmware version and installs the new firmware version on the client device 130(N).”).
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Dattagupta discloses that the client device downloads the new firmware version. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the client device sends a file request for the new firmware version in order to download it.
The combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai does not explicitly disclose:
based on a stored firmware file identifier stored in a data store of the cable modem.
However, Munireddy discloses:
based on a stored firmware file identifier stored in a data store of the [device] (Figure 3; paragraph [0030], “[…] the client system is capable of determining the number of devices that it manages, the model of each device, and the version number of the firmware implemented on each device. This information may then be stored at a mapping structure of each of the client systems. In this embodiment, client systems 302 and 304 each include four storage system devices. Client system 302 maintains a mapping structure 302-1 indicating the model number and firmware version of each of its devices. Similarly, client system 304 maintains a mapping structure 304-1 indicating the firmware version number of each of its own storage system devices.”; paragraph [0034], “[…] this information may be included with the update itself, or may be kept on a mapping structure stored in memory for the management system and/or the client system.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Munireddy is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Munireddy into the combined teachings of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai to include “based on a stored firmware file identifier stored in a data store of the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a cable modem to determine the number of devices that it manages, the model of each device, and the version number of the firmware implemented on each device (Munireddy, paragraph [0030]).
As per Claim 17, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” and Dattagupta further discloses:
receiving, by the [device] from the computing system, an updated firmware file, the updated firmware file comprising an updated firmware file identifier corresponding to the unique firmware file identifier (paragraph [0067], “Returning now to step 340, if the firmware installed on the client device 130(N) is out of date, then the method 300 proceeds to step 344 where the client device 130(N) downloads the new firmware version and installs the new firmware version on the client device 130(N).”).
The combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai does not explicitly disclose:
storing, by the cable modem, the updated firmware file identifier in a data store of the cable modem; and
initiating, by the cable modem, a reboot process for the cable modem.
However, Munireddy discloses:
storing, by the [device], the updated firmware file identifier in a data store of the [device] (Figure 3; paragraph [0030], “[…] the client system is capable of determining the number of devices that it manages, the model of each device, and the version number of the firmware implemented on each device. This information may then be stored at a mapping structure of each of the client systems. In this embodiment, client systems 302 and 304 each include four storage system devices. Client system 302 maintains a mapping structure 302-1 indicating the model number and firmware version of each of its devices. Similarly, client system 304 maintains a mapping structure 304-1 indicating the firmware version number of each of its own storage system devices.”; paragraph [0034], “[…] this information may be included with the update itself, or may be kept on a mapping structure stored in memory for the management system and/or the client system.”); and
initiating, by the [device], a reboot process for the [device] (paragraph [0035], “[…] if a reboot of the storage system device is required, then the client system may query a user (e.g., a system engineer) in step 506 to determine whether it is appropriate to apply the update. The client system may then refrain from applying the update until it determines that a confirmation has been received by the user in step 508.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Munireddy is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Munireddy into the combined teachings of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai to include “storing, by the cable modem, the updated firmware file identifier in a data store of the cable modem; and initiating, by the cable modem, a reboot process for the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a cable modem to determine the number of devices that it manages, the model of each device, and the version number of the firmware implemented on each device (Munireddy, paragraph [0030]) and restart the cable modem after a firmware update is installed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dattagupta in view of Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2019/0146773 (hereinafter “Attard”) and US 2013/0198730 (hereinafter “Munireddy”).
Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to dynamically upgrading and updating a cable modem’s firmware during the boot process (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Munireddy is generally directed to updating firmware residing on devices of a storage system (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Attard is generally directed to updating computer applications (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Attard and Munireddy are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, a firmware file error message; and
determining, by the cable modem, based on the firmware file error message, that a firmware of the cable modem is not outdated.
However, Attard discloses:
receiving, by the [device] from the computing system, a firmware file error message (paragraph [0066], “The update manager 118 may subsequently determine whether the currently received release request is for a new version of the identified computer application, at step 406. To this end, the update manager 118 may compare the received version identifier with the latest/current version identifier for that computer application stored in the information database 116. If at step 406, the update manager 118 determines that the version identifier is equal to or lower than the latest stored version number for the computer application, the process proceeds to step 408 where the update system generates an error message and forwards the error message to the update system client. The error message in one example may notify the developer that the version already exists.”); and
determining, by the [device], based on the firmware file error message, that a firmware of the [device] is not outdated (paragraph [0066], “The update manager 118 may subsequently determine whether the currently received release request is for a new version of the identified computer application, at step 406. To this end, the update manager 118 may compare the received version identifier with the latest/current version identifier for that computer application stored in the information database 116. If at step 406, the update manager 118 determines that the version identifier is equal to or lower than the latest stored version number for the computer application, the process proceeds to step 408 where the update system generates an error message and forwards the error message to the update system client. The error message in one example may notify the developer that the version already exists.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Attard is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Attard into the combined teachings of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai to include “receiving, by the cable modem from the computing system, a firmware file error message; and determining, by the cable modem, based on the firmware file error message, that a firmware of the cable modem is not outdated.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to notify a user of a cable modem that an updated firmware version already exists in the cable modem (Attard, paragraph [0066]).
The combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, and Lai discloses “the cable modem,” but the combination of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Attard does not explicitly disclose:
proceeding, by the cable modem, with a boot process of the cable modem.
However, Munireddy discloses:
proceeding, by the [device], with a boot process of the [device] (paragraph [0035], “[…] if a reboot of the storage system device is required, then the client system may query a user (e.g., a system engineer) in step 506 to determine whether it is appropriate to apply the update. The client system may then refrain from applying the update until it determines that a confirmation has been received by the user in step 508.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Munireddy is an analogous art to the claimed invention. 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 Munireddy into the combined teachings of Dattagupta, Park, Ouarraoui, Lai, and Attard to include “proceeding, by the cable modem, with a boot process of the cable modem.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a cable modem to determine the number of devices that it manages, the model of each device, and the version number of the firmware implemented on each device (Munireddy, paragraph [0030]) and restart the cable modem after a firmware update is installed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
In particular, independent claim 1 provides a highly specific, technical solution that improves the boot-up initialization and firmware upgrade process of network endpoint hardware. As described at length in Applicant’s Specification, typical firmware updates for cable modems are inefficient, untimely, unsecure, and/or otherwise require manual intervention. See Specification, ¶ [0016]. The present application provides a targeted technical solution that solves this technical problem by embedding a “unique firmware file identifier” into the “configuration file.” Because this “unique firmware file identifier that does not match an existing firmware file identifier of any existing firmware file provided by the computing system to cable modems[,]” the present application causes the cable modem to generate and transmit "a firmware file request." See id. at ¶ [0033]. “[I]n response to receiving the firmware file request from the cable modem,” the computing system is operable to “provid[e] … an updated firmware file to the cable modem” that includes “the unique firmware file identifier” of the “configuration file.” Thus, independent claim 1 integrates any alleged “abstract idea” into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two, while also reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged “abstract idea” at Step 2B.
(See Remarks – page 10, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “[…] independent claim 1 provides a highly specific, technical solution that improves the boot-up initialization and firmware upgrade process of network endpoint hardware,” the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, the Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim “as a whole,” in other words, the claim should be evaluated “as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.” When performing this evaluation, examiners should be “careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims” by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the “improvements” consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
According to the portions of the MPEP provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, Claim 1 does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology. As stated in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of Claim 1 hereinabove, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. In particular, the additional element “[…] providing […] an updated firmware file to the cable modem” 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. The additional element recites only the idea of providing an updated firmware file without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the providing 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 providing an updated firmware file with no restriction on how the providing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the providing, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Second, the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[d]ue to the crucial role the cable modem plays in a service provider to customer datalink, timely and efficient firmware upgrades are important for maintaining peak performance of the cable modem” (paragraph [0016], emphasis added) and “[t]he embodiments disclosed herein provide a solution to these problems by providing for dynamic firmware upgrading during the cable modem’s boot process” (paragraph [0017], emphasis added). Thus, the Applicant’s asserted improvement in cable modem technology appears to be realized only when a dynamic firmware upgrade of a cable modem is performed during its boot process. However, Claim 1, as presently constructed, does not recite any limitations pertaining to performing a firmware upgrade, let alone performing a dynamic firmware upgrade of a cable modem during its boot process. Therefore, Claim 1, as a whole, does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology as averred by the Applicant.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to Claim 1 is proper and therefore, maintained.
As the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of independent Claim 1 is maintained for at least the reasons stated hereinabove, the rejections with respect to the remaining independent claims are also maintained for at least the identical reasons set forth hereinabove, and the rejections with respect to their dependent claims are also maintained since the Applicant has not pointed out any further deficiencies of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections with respect to their dependent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights