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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/17/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/24 and 9/19/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, 38, 40, and 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0079507 by Agarwal et al. (Agarwal) in view of US 2016/0337206 by Bugenhagen et al. (Bugenhagen).
With respect to claim 18, Agarwal teaches a Computerized apparatus, comprising:
a first processor apparatus; (Paragraph 59 processing unit)
a data interface in data communication with the first processor apparatus, the data interface configured for data communication with an end user device (EUD); (Fig. 3 – computing device 600 interface to user device 220)
and a first portal process integrated in a software stack of the first processor apparatus and configured to interoperate with the computing environment, the first portal process further configured to determine a compatibility of a plurality of application software with at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD. (Paragraph 42-43 – user device interacts with a home marketplace through home device management application to determine compatibility and interoperability of user’s devices, drivers and applications)
While Agarwal implies an operating systems may be running (Paragraph 26-28 and 59), Agarwal does not explicitly state the computing environment includes an operating system (OS) configured to execute on the first processor apparatus. Bugenhagen teaches that a system implementing a portal process for providing services to a user device can include an operating system in the computing environment. (Paragraph 248-251, 261 – typical computing environment for components – gateways, nids, servers, etc - of the portal system includes an operating system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have computing environment of Agarwal include an operating system as disclosed in Bugenhagen. Using well known and established operating systems software to manage and implement the computing environment applications and functionalities would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 19, Agarwal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, wherein the computerized apparatus comprises a gateway apparatus for use in a managed content distribution network, and the gateway apparatus further comprises a network interface apparatus configured to interface with a server process of the managed content distribution network in order to determine said compatibility. (Argawal Fig. 2, Paragraphs 42-43 – interface to network 222 to home market place server which is used for determining compatibility)
With respect to claim 21, Agarwal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, wherein the computerized apparatus is further configured to cause installation of one or more of the plurality of application software on the EUD. (Argawal Paragraph 18, 43).
With respect to claim 38, Agarwal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first portal process is further configured to: based on the determination of the compatibility of the plurality of application software with the at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD, provide data representative of a recommendation for an installation or download of the plurality of application software on the at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD. (Argawal Paragraph 43, 51 Claim 11 a marketplace to recommend at least one of an application module and a home device)
With respect to claim 40, Agarwal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first portal process is further configured to: based on a determination of an incompatibility of a plurality of application software with the at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD, provide data representative of a recommendation indicative of plurality of application software which are compatible with the at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD. (Argawal Paragraph 43, 51 Claim 11)
With respect to claim 42, Claim 42 is similar in scope to claim 18 and is rejected based on the same rationale (Argawal and Bugenhagen).
With respect to claim 43, Argawal as modfied teaches the method of claim 42, wherein determining the compatibility comprises evaluating at least one of (i) hardware compatibility of the target application software object with hardware of the at least one EUD or (ii) firmware compatibility of the target application software object with firmware of the at least one EUD. (Paragraph 42-43, compatibility and interoperability of user/home devices can be based on hardware roles such as a specific tv, light bulbs, etc)
With respect to claim 44, Argawal as modfied teaches the method of claim 42, further comprising, based on the result of the compatibility determination, causing installation of the target application software object on the at least one EUD. (Argawal Paragraph 18, 43).
With respect to claim 45, Claim 45 is similar in scope to claim 18 and is rejected based on the same rationale (Argawal and Bugenhagen).
With respect to claim 46, Argawal as modified teaches the computer-readable apparatus of claim 45, wherein the plurality of instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the computerized apparatus to: responsive to the compatibility, cause installation of the application software on the at least one EUD. (Argawal Paragraph 18, 43).
With respect to claim 47, Argawal as modified teaches the computer-readable apparatus of claim 45, wherein the device data includes at least one capability or configuration parameter of the at least one EUD; and wherein the plurality of instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the computerized apparatus to: obtain the at least one capability or configuration parameter by querying the at least one EUD. (Argawal Paragraph 42-43 – user device configuration is received and stored)
With respect to claim 48, Argawal as modified teaches the computer-readable apparatus of claim 45, wherein the computerized apparatus comprises gateway apparatus in data communication with a managed content distribution network; and wherein the plurality of instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the computerized apparatus to: query a server process of the managed content distribution network to obtain at least a portion of the device data. (Argawal Paragraph 42-43 – stored user device configuration used to determine device compatibility and interoperability with a user's application modules and drivers.)
Claim(s) 20, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Bugenhagen as applied to claim 18, 45 above, and further in view of US 2020/0065085 by Talbert et al. (Talbert).
With respect to claim 20, Agarwal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first portal process comprises a containerized application software engine, the containerized application software engine configured to manage one or more containerized applications utilized with the computerized apparatus.
Talbert teaches a containerized application engine may be used to manage one or more containerized applications utilized with a computerized apparatus. (Paragraphs 7-14 containerized system used in conjunction with CPE devices can implement and manage multiple application specific containers ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the portal process of Agarwal comprise a containerized application software engine as in Talbert. One would be motivated to have this as container technology provides a standalone environment, which enables flexible deployment of core and/or add-on functionality (Talbert paragraphs 13-14).
Claim 49 is similar in scope to claim 20 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argawal and Bugenhagen as applied to claim18 above, and further in view of US 2018/0129793 by Ulis et al. (Ulis).
With respect to claim 39, Argawal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first portal process is further configured to: based on a determination of an incompatibility of a plurality of application software with the at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD, provide data representative of a recommendation to update at least one of (i) a firmware or (ii) one or more libraries of the at least one of the computerized apparatus or the EUD.
Ulis teaches a process that determines incompatibility of software to execute properly on a target device. In response, a recommendation is made to install new firmware and libraries necessary for proper operation of the software on the device (Paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the portal process of Agarwal include recommending firmware and libraries as in Ulis. One would be motivated to have this as it provides convenience to remedy situations of incompatibility.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Bugenhagen as applied to claim18 above, and further in view of US 2018/0278607 by Loladia et al. (Loladia).
With respect to claim 41, Agarwal as modified teaches the computerized apparatus of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first portal process is further configured to: create an application protocol interface (API) call to a portal manager server apparatus for device profile data associated with the EUD; obtain the device profile data; and utilize the device profile data to determine whether the EUD is registered with the first portal process.
Loladia teaches as part of a registration process a device management service, a device profile and registry is made. The profile may be managed using an API. (Paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the portal process of Agarwal include an API and device profile as is Loladia. Using known device profile and API techniques to manage device registration would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argawal and Bugenhagen as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of US 2015/0205952 by Weiss (Weiss).
With respect to claim 50, Agarwal as modified teaches the computer-readable apparatus of claim 45, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor apparatus, cause the computerized apparatus to: associate the application software with one or more logical domains that govern access between the at least one EUD and at least one other computerized device associated with a premises network to which the at least one EUD is connected.
Weiss teaches applications can be associated with logical domains that govern access to the application based on the domain (Paragraphs 5, 26-35 – applications can be associated with one ore more logical domains which each have police defined controls for access and communications between domains).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the portal process of Agarwal include associating applications to logical domains as in Weiss. One would be motivated to have this for the security and privacy benefits of data segregation (Weiss paragraphs 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights