Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the reply filed on August 20, 2026.
2. Claims 8-27 have been examined.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC §112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. Claim 21 recites claim limitations "a connector" (specification, paragraph 0036, paragraph 0056), "the device controller" (0034, 0035, 0046) have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 21 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 8, 11-13, 18, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0205329 to Wu et al. (hereafter “Wu”) in view of US 2018/0007040 to Thom et al. (hereafter “Thom”).
Claim 8.
Wu discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
enabling remote control of a controllable device by a remote computing device through a device controller coupled to the controllable device to enable the remote computing device (FIG.1 and related text)
to remotely perform:
mapping firmware associated with the controllable device (FIG.2, block 200 and related text, map and send updated BIOS image to target system);
identifying a signal in the controllable device to control (FIG.2, block 210 and related text, Is Update Flag Set? YES);
configuring the device controller to control the identified signal (FIG.2, blocks 212-214 and related text);
modifying firmware of a component of the controllable device by controlling the identified signal (FIG2, block 216 and related text, Replace System BIOS with Updated BIOS);
operating the controllable device (FIG.2, blocks 218-222 and related text).
Wu does not disclose mapping software associated with the controllable device, and modifying software of the controllable device.
However, Thom discloses
mapping software associated with the controllable device (FIG.5, blocks 502-508 and related text), and
modifying software of the controllable device (0088-0091).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thom’s teaching into Wu‘s teaching so that software update can be targeted for a particular computing device and may not be duplicated and provided to an additional, unauthorized machine as suggested by Thom (0016).
Claim 11.
Wu does not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the modifying of the software of the controllable device comprises flashing an image of an operating system on the controllable device from a memory device coupled to the device controller.
However, Thom discloses the modifying of the software of the controllable device comprises flashing an image of an operating system on the controllable device from a memory device coupled to the device controller (0033, 0041, 0043, 0054).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thom’s teaching into Wu‘s teaching so that software update can be targeted for a particular computing device and may not be duplicated and provided to an additional, unauthorized machine as suggested by Thom (0016).
Claim 12.
Wu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the modifying firmware of a component of the controllable device by controlling the identified signal comprises: flashing the firmware on the component without using an operating system of the controllable device (FIG.2, BIOS update successful before loading an operating system).
Claim 13.
Wu discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further enabling the remote computing device to remotely perform: selecting the controllable device from a plurality of remote controllable devices (0005, 0021, 0022).
Claim 18.
Wu discloses a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by a processing circuit, perform a method comprising:
enabling remote control of a controllable device by a remote computing device through a device controller coupled to the controllable device to enable the remote computing device (FIG.1 and related text)
to remotely perform:
selecting the controllable device from a plurality of remote controllable devices (0005, 0021, 0022);
mapping firmware associated with the controllable device (FIG.2, block 200 and related text, map and send updated BIOS image to target system);
identifying a signal in the controllable device to control l (FIG.2, block 210 and related text, Is Update Flag Set? YES);
configuring the device controller to control the identified signal (FIG.2, blocks 212-214 and related text);
modifying firmware of a component of the controllable device by controlling the identified signal (FIG2, block 216 and related text, Replace System BIOS with Updated BIOS); and
operating the controllable device (FIG.2, blocks 218-222 and related text).
Wu does not disclose mapping software associated with the controllable device, and modifying software of the controllable device.
However, Thom discloses
mapping software associated with the controllable device (FIG.5, blocks 502-508 and related text), and
modifying software of the controllable device (0088-0091).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thom’s teaching into Wu‘s teaching so that software update can be targeted for a particular computing device and may not be duplicated and provided to an additional, unauthorized machine as suggested by Thom (0016).
Claim 21.
Wu discloses a device controller comprising:
a connector configured to connect the device controller to a controllable device; the device controller configured to connect to a remote computing device to enable the remote computing device to control the controllable device through the device controller (FIG.1 and related text);
the device controller configured, based on input received from the remote computing device, to perform for the remote computing device:
map firmware associated with the controllable device (FIG.2, block 200 and related text, map and send updated BIOS image to target system);
identification of a signal in the controllable device to control l (FIG.2, block 210 and related text, Is Update Flag Set? YES);
configuration of the device controller to control the identified signal (FIG.2, blocks 212-214 and related text);
modification of firmware of a component of the controllable device by controlling the identified signal (FIG2, block 216 and related text, Replace System BIOS with Updated BIOS);
operation of the controllable device (FIG.2, blocks 218-222 and related text).
Wu does not disclose mapping software associated with the controllable device, and modifying software of the controllable device.
However, Thom discloses
mapping software associated with the controllable device (FIG.5, blocks 502-508 and related text), and
modifying software of the controllable device (0088-0091).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thom’s teaching into Wu‘s teaching so that software update can be targeted for a particular computing device and may not be duplicated and provided to an additional, unauthorized machine as suggested by Thom (0016).
Claim 23.
This claim is a controller version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 11, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 24.
This claim is a controller version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 12, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Thom and further in view of US 2006/0195839 to Lin et al. (hereafter “Lin”).
Claim 10.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the operating of the controllable device comprises: operating or testing the controllable device using a script that automatically controls operation of the controllable device.
However, Lin discloses the operating of the controllable device comprises: operating or testing the controllable device using a script that automatically controls operation of the controllable device (0046).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lin’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to install a client test service on the client computer as suggested by Lin (0046).
8. Claims 14, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Thom and further in view of US 2008/0295077 to Sengupta et al. (hereafter "Sengupta").
Claim 14.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further enabling the remote computing device to remotely perform: testing the controllable device while running a debugger with user-level debugging control and hardware-level debugging control.
However, Sengupta discloses enabling the remote computing device to remotely perform: testing the controllable device while running a debugger with user-level debugging control and hardware-level debugging control (0027, 0038, 0047).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sengupta’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to debug a hung system as suggested by Sengupta (0030).
Claim 19.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, further enabling the remote computing device to remotely perform: testing the controllable device while running a debugger with user-level debugging control and hardware-level debugging control.
However, Sengupta discloses enabling the remote computing device to remotely perform: testing the controllable device while running a debugger with user-level debugging control and hardware-level debugging control (0027, 0038, 0047).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sengupta’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to debug a hung system as suggested by Sengupta (0030).
Claim 25.
This claim is a controller version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 14, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
9. Claims 15, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Thom and further in view of US 2023/0004255 to Tabrizi (hereafter "Tabrizi").
Claim 15.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the operating of the controllable device comprises: controlling a user input emulator in the device controller to generate signals to emulate user input through a first set of human interface devices (HIDs) associated with the controllable device.
However, Tabrizi discloses controlling a user input emulator in the device controller to generate signals to emulate user input through a first set of human interface devices (HIDs) associated with the controllable device (0112, 0121, 0131).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tabrizi’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to emulate points on user interface based on finger's positions as suggested by Tabrizi (0130).
Claim 16.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the operating of the controllable device comprises: controlling a communication bus emulator in the device controller to receive and transmit signals on at least one communication bus in the controllable device, at least one of the transmitted signals emulating user input through a second set of HIDs associated with the controllable device.
However, Tabrizi controlling a communication bus emulator in the device controller to receive and transmit signals on at least one communication bus in the controllable device, at least one of the transmitted signals emulating user input through a second set of HIDs associated with the controllable device (0112, 0121, 0131, touchscreen, mouse, keyboard, touchpad).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tabrizi’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to emulate points on user interface based on finger's positions as suggested by Tabrizi (0130).
Claim 26.
This claim is a controller version, which recites the same limitations as those of claims 15 and 16, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
10. Claims 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Thom and further in view of US 2005/0174986 to Emond et al. (hereafter “Emond”).
Claim 17.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the operating of the controllable device comprises: controlling an external device emulator in the device controller to emulate connection of an external device to a communication interface of the controllable device.
However, Emond discloses controlling an external device emulator in the device controller to emulate connection of an external device to a communication interface of the controllable device (0006, 0007, 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Emond’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to emulate the negotiation of a wireless connection as suggested by Emond (0011).
Claim 27.
This claim is a controller version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 17, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Thom and Emond, and further in view of US 11,710,117 to Wall et al. (hereafter “Wall”).
Claim 20.
Wu and Thom do not disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein the operating of the controllable device comprises: controlling an external device emulator in the device controller to emulate connection of an external device to a communication interface of the controllable device; and controlling the external device emulator to flash software on to the controllable device from a storage device coupled to the device controller.
However, Emond discloses controlling an external device emulator in the device controller to emulate connection of an external device to a communication interface of the controllable device (0006, 0007, 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Emond’s teaching into Wu and Thom‘s teaching to emulate the negotiation of a wireless connection as suggested by Emond (0011).
Wu, Thom, and Emond do not disclose controlling the external device emulator to flash software on to the controllable device from a storage device coupled to the device controller.
However, Wall discloses controlling the external device emulator to flash software on to the controllable device from a storage device coupled to the device controller (FIG.4A and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wall’s teaching into Wu and Thom and Emond‘s teaching to include changes to an operating system, kernel, or software as suggested by Wall (col.12, lines 7-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 9 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the operating of the controllable device comprises: emulating disconnection of a battery of the controllable device and reconnection of the battery; or emulating disconnection of an alternating current (AC) power source of the controllable device and reapplying the AC power source; and booting the controllable device after the reconnection of the battery or the reapplying of the AC power source,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating claim 9 into claims 8, 18, and 21 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim 22 is similar to claim 9 and also allowable.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
