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
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 05/08/2026.
Claims 16-30 are pending in this application. Claim 16 is independent claim. In Amendment, claims 1-15 are cancelled and claims 16-19 and 21-30 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
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 distances…” and “determining the sequence…” 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 limitations including “collecting information…” is considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A. However, these additional elements are considered as pre post activity solutions for gathering/collecting the information over network. Thus, it recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong II, See MPEP 2106.05(g). 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 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).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signaoff et al. (U.S. 8,555,371 B1) in view of Waris et al. (U.S. 2011/0126185 A1).
Re claim 16, Signaoff et al. disclose in Figures 1-4 a method for determining a sequence of software updates (e.g. abstract) and/or boot commands to network devices in a network (e.g. abstract and Figure 3), comprising: collecting information about the network devices in the network using Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) (e.g. col. 9 line 63 to col. 10 line 15 which data are gathered/collected for analysis and col. 8 lines 42-55 and abstract wherein the endpoint or intermediary devices can be update with software). Signaoff et al. fail to explicitly disclose determining distances from the update station to each of the network devices by the information about the network devices; and determining the sequence of the updates and/or the boot commands to the network devices based on the determined distances from the update station to each of the network devices. However, Waris et al. disclose in Figures 1-9 determining distances from the update station to each of the network devices by the information about the network devices; and determining the sequence of the updates and/or the boot commands to the network devices based on the determined distances from the update station to each of the network devices (e.g. abstract, Figures 1, 3 and 5, and paragraphs [0043-0048] wherein the distance must be determined from UE to a point location which can be the update location/station in order to determine the rate of updating, as a whole would be the sequence of UEs in updating sequence). 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 determining distances from the update station to each of the network devices by the information about the network devices; and determining the sequence of the updates and/or the boot commands to the network devices based on the determined distances from the update station to each of the network devices as conceptually seen in Waris et al.’s invention into Signaoff et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently updating large nodes in the network timely.
Re claim 17, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and the determined sequence supplies the updates and/or boot commands first to the network devices which are farthest away from the update station (e.g. Waris et al. - abstract, Figures 1, 3 and 5, and paragraphs [0043-0048] wherein the distance must be determined from UE to a point location which can be the update location/station in order to determine the rate of updating, as a whole would be the sequence of UEs in updating sequence).
Re claim 18, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and the sequence of the updates and/or the boot commands is determined from the switch with the greatest distance to the update station to the the switch with the least distance to the update station (e.g. Waris et al. - abstract, Figures 1, 3 and 5, and paragraphs [0043-0048] wherein the distance must be determined from UE to a point location which can be the update location/station in order to determine the rate of updating, as a whole would be the sequence of UEs in updating sequence).
Re claim 22, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and 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 Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and network devices 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 Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and the updates are initially distributed to all of the switches simultaneously (e.g. Signaoff et al. - abstract), and only the update sequence is determined by the distance (e.g. Waris et al. - abstract, Figures 1, 3 and 5, and paragraphs [0043-0048] wherein the distance must be determined from UE to a point location which can be the update location/station in order to determine the rate of updating, as a whole would be the sequence of UEs in updating sequence).
Re claim 26, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose the network devices are routers (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and Waris et al. – Figure 1).
Re claim 27, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose the update station is configured as an independent network participant (e.g. Signaoff et al. – Figures 2-3).
Re claim 28, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and 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 Waris et al. disclose at least some of the network devices are switches and a boot station initiates the software updates of other ones of the switches or sends the boot commands comprises a PC, a switch or a router in the network (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and Figures 2-3).
Re claim 30, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. disclose the boot station is a device that distributes the software updates (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and Figures 2-3) and/or sends the boot commands, and wherein comprises a switch, a router or another network devices in the network (e.g. Signaoff et al. – abstract and claim 1).
Claims 19-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signaoff et al. (U.S. 8,555,371 B1) in view of Waris et al. (U.S. 2011/0126185 A1) and further in view of Yach et al. (U.S. 2015/0370848 A1).
Re claim 19, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. discloses at least some of the network devices are switches (e.g. Signaoff et al. – Figures 2-3 and Waris et al. – Figure 1) but 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 Waris 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 Waris et al. and Yach et al. disclose the access to the MIBs is performed via one of the network devices (e.g. Yach et al. – paragraphs [0165-0166]).
Re claim 24, Signaoff et al. in view of Waris et al. and Yach et al. disclose the access to the MIBs is performed via Simple Management Network Protocol (SNMP) commands (e.g. Yach et al. – paragraphs [0165-0166]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 16-30 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2011/0126185 A1
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights