DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 16, the acronym “LLDP” is requested to write in full as “link layer discovery protocol (LLDP)”.
Re claim 24, similarly the acronym “SNMP” is requested to write in full.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Re claim 16, the term "preferably" in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "preferably" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus for examination purpose, the examiner disregard this term in the claim.
Re claim 26, the term “the proposed method” lacks of antecedence basis. For examination purposes, the examiner considers the term as “a proposed method”.
Re claim 29, the phrases “(or sends the boot commands) and “such as a PC, a switch or a router” are indefinite as it is unclear exactly what they are claiming as it further or alternative to the existing limitations.
Re claim 30, similarly, the phrase “(switch, router or the like) is indefinite as it is unclear exactly what they are claiming as it further or alternative to the existing limitations.
Re claims 17-25 and 27-28, these claims are also rejected for being dependent on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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(s) 16 is/are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitation of “determining the sequence of software updates…” and “the distance of at least one switch…by the information” can be mentally done in human mind given the information of the network under Prong I step 2A. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the other limtations including “wherein update station…”; “LLDP…in the network”; and “the sequence of updates…by the distance” are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A. However, these additional elements are considered as well known computer system components in the technology as part of any networks, pre and post activity solutions wherein LLDP is used to collect information is considered as pre-activity solution for gathering/collecting information for analysis and the post-activity solution as merely considered as “apply it” for sequence update. Under step 2B, these additional elements are either individually or in-combination does not integrate into the practical application wherein these additional elements are considered as well known computer system components in the technology as part of any networks, pre and post activity solutions wherein LLDP is used to collect information is considered as pre-activity solution for gathering/collecting information for analysis and the post-activity solution as merely considered as “apply it” for sequence update which can be seen in MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
Re claims 17-30, these claims are not integrated into the practical application as they are either further detail the abstract idea limitations or additional elements which insignificantly amount to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-18, 22-23, and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signaoff et al. (U.S. 8,555,371 B1) in view of Klee et al. (U.S. 2010/0241692 A1).
Re claim 16, Signaoff et al. disclose in Figures 1-4 a method for determining the sequence of software updates (e.g. abstract) and/or boot commands to network devices, preferably switches, wherein an update station, multiple network participants and at least one switch, preferably multiple switches, can communicate with each other in a network (e.g. abstract and Figure 3), and wherein:
LLDP is used to collect information about the network devices, preferably the switches, in the network (e.g. col. 9 line 63 to col. 10 line 15 which data are gathered/collected for analysis); and
the sequence of updates and/or boot commands to the network participants, preferably the multiple switches,
Signaoff et al. fail to explicitly disclose the update is based on the distance of at least one switch, preferably the multiple switches, from the update station is determined by the information.
However, Klee et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 the update is based on the distance of at least one switch, preferably the multiple switches, from the update station is determined by the information (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0035-0038] which discloses the concept of updating the nodes based on the distance from the provider).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the update is based on the distance of at least one switch, preferably the multiple switches, from the update station is determined by the information as conceptually seen in Klee et al.’s invention into Signaoff et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently updating large nodes in the network.
Re claim 17, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose first those switches which are farthest away from the update station are supplied with updates and/or boot commands (e.g. Klee et al. – paragraphs [0037-0038]).
Re claim 18, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose the sequence of updates and/or boot commands is determined from the switch with the greatest distance to the switch with the least distance to the update station (e.g. Klee et al. – paragraphs [0037-0038]).
Re claim 22, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose the switches are LLDP- capable (e.g. Signaoff et al. - col. 9 line 63 to col. 10 line 15).
Re claim 23, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose network participants adjacent to the switches are LLDP-capable (e.g. Signaoff et al. - col. 9 line 63 to col. 10 line 15).
Re claim 25, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose updates are initially distributed to all switches simultaneously (e.g. Signaoff et al. - abstract), and only the update sequence is determined by the distance (e.g. Klee et al. – paragraphs [0037-0038]).
Re claim 26, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose similar to the switches, routers can also benefit from the proposed method for distributing the software updates and/or boot commands (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract).
Re claim 27, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose the update station is designed as an independent network participant (e.g. Signaoff et al. – Figures 2-3).
Re claim 28, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose the update station is integrated in one of the switches (e.g. col. Signaoff et al. - line 65 to col. 2 line 15).
Re claim 29, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose a boot station that initiates the software updates of the other switches (or sends the boot commands) can be any device in the network such as a PC, a switch or a router (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and Figures 2-3).
Re claim 30, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. disclose the boot station is the device that distributes the software updates (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and Figures 2-3) or sends boot commands, and wherein this function of the boot station can also be taken over by another device (switch, router or the like) in the network if required (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and claim 1).
Claims 19-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signaoff et al. (U.S. 8,555,371 B1) in view of Klee et al. (U.S. 2010/0241692 A1) and further in view of Yach et al. (U.S. 2015/0370848 A1).
Re claim 19, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. fail to disclose management information bases (MIBs) of the switches are accessed, and the distance to the individual switches is determined via these accesses. However, Yach et al. disclose management information bases (MIBs) of the switches are accessed, and the distance to the individual switches is determined via these accesses (e.g. paragraphs [0165-0166]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add management information bases (MIBs) of the switches are accessed, and the distance to the individual switches is determined via these accesses as seen in Yach et al.’s invention into Signaoff et al.’s invention because it would enable to track the data efficiently in the network devices.
Re claim 20, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. and Yach et al. disclose access to the MIBs is performed via the update station (e.g. Yach et al. – paragraphs [0165-0166]).
Re claim 21, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. and Yach et al. disclose the access to the MIBs is performed via one of the network participants (e.g. Yach et al. – paragraphs [0165-0166]).
Re claim 24, Signaoff et al. in view of Klee et al. and Yach et al. disclose the access to the MIBs is performed via SNMP commands (e.g. Yach et al. – paragraphs [0165-0166]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20130297705-A1
US-20100241692-A1
US-20150180720-A1
US-20150207677-A1
US-20150370848-A1
US-20170117940-A1
US-20170085488-A1
US-20170193205-A1
US-20220255805-A1
US-20230086234-A1
US-11662994-B1
US-8555371-B1
US-8825847-B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451