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 action is in response to application filed 09/12/2025.
Claims 16-26, 28, 30 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of record fails to disclose “deleting the new firmware from the cache of the respective network participants after the new firmware is distributed to the neighboring network participants”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hunt discloses the mesh node 110 may remove one or more previously stored software updates from the local memory of the present mesh node (e.g., based on a least recently used scheme, a first in, first out scheme, or any other scheme). The mesh node 110 may hold the software update in the local memory for a predefined time period (e.g., a time period specified in metadata included with the software update, a time period defined in a configuration file of the present mesh node 110, etc.) prior to sending the software update to any other mesh nodes 110, as indicated in block 568. The present mesh node 110 determines one or more target mesh nodes for the received software update ([0040]). In other words, Hunt discloses the mesh node removing stored updates once transmitted to other nodes (FIFO scheme). Also, Hunt discloses holding the update on the mesh node local memory for a time period before sending the update to any other mesh nodes. Therefore, Hunt discloses deleting/removing the update from the mesh node local memory after transmitting the update.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented on the previous office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17, 22-26, 28, 30 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt et al. (US 2019/0286435 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hunt discloses a method of automating software updates for network participants, wherein a firmware master and network participants are configured to communicate with one another in a network ([0014]: the system 100 includes a publisher server 140 which may provide a software update to one of the mesh nodes 110 for distribution through the network 130 to one or more target mesh nodes 110 to which the software update pertains), comprising:
receiving new firmware manually at firmware master ([0046]: The publisher server 140 may receive the data from a developer of the software update);
distributing the new firmware to at least one of the network participants ([0045]: the present mesh node 110 may send the software update to all neighboring mesh nodes 110 (e.g., all mesh nodes 110 within one hop of the present mesh node 110) using a gossip protocol, such as if the criticality of the software update satisfies a predefined threshold (e.g., if the criticality is high);
after receiving the new firmware, checking the new firmware by the at least one of the network participants for compatibility and, if compatible, carrying out an update process independently ([0042]: the present mesh node 110 may patch itself with the software update (e.g., if the present mesh node 110 is of a type that the software update pertains to and if the present software version executed by the present mesh node 110 is older than the version of the software update);
subsequently distributing the new firmware from the at least one of the network participant to all neighboring network participants ([0045]: the present mesh node 110 may send the software update to all neighboring mesh nodes 110 (e.g., all mesh nodes 110 within one hop of the present mesh node 110) using a gossip protocol),
storing the new firmware in a cache of the respective network participants ([0040]: The mesh node 110 may hold the software update in the local memory for a predefined time period); and deleting the new firmware from the cache of the respective network participants after the new firmware is distributed to the neighboring network participants ([0040]: The mesh node 110 may hold the software update in the local memory for a predefined time period (e.g., a time period specified in metadata included with the software update, a time period defined in a configuration file of the present mesh node 110, etc.) prior to sending the software update to any other mesh nodes 110).
Regarding claim 17, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the firmware master is integrated in a network subscriber ([0014]: publisher server 140 which may provide a software update to one of the mesh nodes 110 for distribution through the network 130 to one or more target mesh nodes 110 to which the software update pertains).
Regarding claim 22, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein for the compatibility check, the network subscriber is identified and the firmware is compared to an entry within the network subscriber firmware ([0040]: , the mesh node 110 may verify the integrity of the contents of the components of the software update as a function of the one or more signatures included in the manifest. The signer of the components of the software update may be a root, global or central trusted entity (e.g., the publisher server 140) or a trusted peer node (e.g., another mesh node 110), where trust is established through a variety of key exchange mechanisms).
Regarding claim 23, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 22, wherein the identity of the network subscriber is determined via a product number, an order designation, an order number or similar ([0034]: , obtains static fingerprint data indicative of characteristics of the mesh nodes 110 that typically change infrequently or not at all, such as the type of the mesh node 110, the number and types of sensors included in the mesh node 110, and a version of software (e.g., operating system, application, driver, etc.) executed by the mesh node 110).
Regarding claim 24, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the installed firmware version is determined for the compatibility check and the update process is only carried out in the case of a newer firmware version ([0029]: the software update applies to (e.g., which mesh nodes 110 are of a type that the software update applies to and which of the mesh nodes 110 are executing a software version that is older than the version of the software update).
Regarding claim 25, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the distribution of the firmware to the neighboring network subscribers is performed by the network subscriber that has just been updated ([0042]: the present mesh node 110 may patch itself with the software update. [0045]: Subsequently, in block 604, the present mesh node 110 sends the software update to one or more of the mesh nodes 110).
Regarding claim 26, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the firmware is distributed to the neighboring network participants by the firmware master ([0044]: the mesh node 110 may determine the path as a function of the network availability of each mesh node 110, as indicated in block 600).
Regarding claim 28, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the distribution to neighboring network participants is carried out using an individual, company-specific image transmission protocol ([0040]: the software update may include a manifest which may be embodied as any data indicative of one or more signatures of files, packages, modules or other components of the software update (e.g., a software update image). [0045]: the present mesh node 110 may send the software update to all neighboring mesh nodes 110 (e.g., all mesh nodes 110 within one hop of the present mesh node 110) using a gossip protocol).
Regarding claim 30, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the network participants are switches, routers, PC stations or similar ([0014]: The set of mesh nodes 110 includes mesh nodes 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, and 122. While six mesh nodes 110 are shown in the set, it should be understood that in other embodiments, the set may include a different number of mesh nodes 110. Additionally, the system 100 includes a publisher server 140 which may provide a software update to one of the mesh nodes 110).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Chhabra et al. (US 2016/0337169 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16.
However, Hunt does not disclose wherein the firmware master receives the new firmware via an FTP connection.
In an analogous art, Chhabra disclose wherein the firmware master receives the new firmware via an FTP connection ([0043]: a given device may download software/image update 402 on a pull basis, such as by issuing a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) request to server 150 or to the Root/Gateway).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hunt to comprise “wherein the firmware master receives the new firmware via an FTP connection” taught by Chhabra.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled for peer-assisted image updates with self-healing capabilities to be performed in a network (Chhabra, [0001]).
Regarding claim 20, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16.\
However, Hunt does not disclose wherein the distribution to neighboring network subscribers is performed via FTP.
In an analogous art, Chhabra disclose wherein the distribution to neighboring network subscribers is performed via FTP ([0043]: obtain update 402 from the peer, before turning to the Root/Gateway or server 150 for update 402 via FTP request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hunt to comprise “wherein the distribution to neighboring network subscribers is performed via FTP” taught by Chhabra.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled for peer-assisted image updates with self-healing capabilities to be performed in a network (Chhabra, [0001]).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Bargagni (US 2016/0065674 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16.
However, Hunt does not disclose wherein neighboring network participants are determined via a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP).
In an analogous art, Bargagni disclose wherein neighboring network participants are determined via a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) ([0098]: use standard network protocol, such as LLDP (Link Layer Discovery Protocol), to determine the information about the first level network switch (411) to which it is connected and the neighborhood (e.g., other cells (425) connected to the same first level network switch (411)), the information about the second level network switch to which the first level network switch is connected and the neighborhood (e.g., other cells connected to the same second level network switch (411)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hunt to comprise “wherein neighboring network participants are determined via a Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP)” taught by Bargagni.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to identify a network connectivity location of the cell computer in a connection hierarchy via LLDP queries (Bargagni, [0063]).
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Djabarov et al. (US 2013/0185548 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hunt discloses the method according to claim 16.
However, Hunt does not disclose wherein the distribution to neighboring network participants is performed via http or HTTPS.
In an analogous art, Djabarov discloses wherein the distribution to neighboring network participants is performed via http or HTTPS ([0038]: mobile device 122 polls update server 120 to check if a new firmware update is available by sending a request to the URL or IP address of update server 120. In particular embodiments, the request may be in the form of an HTTP POST request. In particular embodiments, the request may be an HTTPS POST).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hunt to comprise “wherein the distribution to neighboring network participants is performed via http or HTTPS” taught by Djabarov.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled to poll a server for new firmware updates available via HTTPS requests (Djabarov, [0038]).
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Donahue et al., US 2021/0274341 A1: Secure Software Update in an Wireless Mesh Radio Network Using Peer-To-Peer File Sharing.
Griffin et al., US 2023/0261938 A1: Mesh Network Update Management.
Kaartinen et al., US 2020/0379747 A1: Software Update Mechanism.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446