DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Avi (Publication Number 20220100492) in view of TORIUMI et al. (‘TORIUMI’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240160414).
As per claim 1, Ben-Avi teaches
An information processing apparatus comprising: (see abstract, background, and paragraphs [0030]-[0031])
a first device; a second device; (processing devices, paragraphs [0028]-[0030])
a control unit configured to implement control to update or restore at least one of a first program of the first device or a second program of the second device; (update software on computer, paragraphs [0060],[0081])
and a storage configured to store a first version of the second program of the second device, wherein (software update package with updates version of trusted software provided from cloud-based computer, paragraphs [0100]-[0101]&[0115])
the first device includes a plurality of storage areas for respectively holding a first version and a second version of the first program, (different respective memory locations for storing current and updated versions of trusted software, respectively, paragraph [0115])
when restoring the first program of the first device, the control unit makes a setting in the first device so as to switch a storage area used for startup among the plurality of the storage areas, (switching from the current version of the trusted software to the updated version of the trusted software that are stored in different respective memory areas where software has booting metadata, paragraph [0115])
Ben-Avi does not explicitly indicate “the second device includes a storage area for holding a second version of the second program different from the first version of the second program” or “and when restoring the second program of the second device, the control unit rewrites the storage area of the second device with the first version of the second program stored in the storage”.
However, TORIUMI discloses “the second device includes a storage area for holding a second version of the second program different from the first version of the second program” (first and second storage areas, paragraph [0002], where it is noted that ‘for’ indicates intended use of the storage area and is not required to be taught), “and when restoring the second program of the second device, the control unit rewrites the storage area of the second device with the first version of the second program stored in the storage” (rewrite program with newer version based on update received, paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ben-Avi and TORIUMI because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by correcting defects or fixing problems in software (see TORIUMI, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of avoiding downtime due to software problems/defects.
As per claim 2,
Ben-Avi does not explicitly indicate “when updating the first program of the first device, the control unit rewrites one storage area of the plurality of the storage areas with a latest version of the first program and makes a setting so as to switch the storage area used for the startup to the one storage area holding the latest version of the first program, and when updating the second program of the second device, the control unit causes a current version of the second program held in the storage area of the second device to be held in the storage, and rewrites the storage area of the second device with a latest version of the second program”.
However, TORIUMI discloses “when updating the first program of the first device, the control unit rewrites one storage area of the plurality of the storage areas with a latest version of the first program and makes a setting so as to switch the storage area used for the startup to the one storage area holding the latest version of the first program, and when updating the second program of the second device, the control unit causes a current version of the second program held in the storage area of the second device to be held in the storage, and rewrites the storage area of the second device with a latest version of the second program” (first and second storage areas, paragraph [0002], rewrite program with newer version based on update received, paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ben-Avi and TORIUMI because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by correcting defects or fixing problems in software (see TORIUMI, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of avoiding downtime due to software problems/defects.
As per claim 3, Ben-Avi teaches
the information processing apparatus includes a plurality of devices including one or more of the first devices and one or more of the second devices, and the control unit identifies that the one device corresponds to the first device, based on device configuration information indicating that one device of the plurality of devices is either the first device or the second device. (paragraph [0028])
As per claim 4, Ben-Avi teaches
the device configuration information indicates a number of storage areas included in each of the plurality of devices. (numbered software stacks indicate number of storage areas, paragraph [0107])
As per claim 5, Ben-Avi teaches
the first device includes a startup control unit configured to acquire information indicating the storage area to be used for the startup from a non-volatile memory, read the first program from the storage area indicated by the information, and load the first program in a work area, and the second device includes a startup control unit configured to read the second program from the storage area of the second device and load the second program in a work area. (software booting metadata, paragraph [0115])
As per claim 6,
Ben-Avi does not explicitly indicate “restoring of the first program of the first device and restoring of the second program of the second device are executed in response to an instruction to restore the information processing apparatus”.
However, TORIUMI discloses “restoring of the first program of the first device and restoring of the second program of the second device are executed in response to an instruction to restore the information processing apparatus” (rewrite program with newer version based on update received, paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ben-Avi and TORIUMI because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by correcting defects or fixing problems in software (see TORIUMI, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of avoiding downtime due to software problems/defects.
As per claim 7, Ben-Avi teaches
the control unit and the storage are provided in the first device, the second device, or in other devices different from the first device and the second device (paragraphs [0060],[0081]).
As per claim 8, Ben-Avi teaches
the information processing apparatus is an image processing apparatus. (paragraph [0028])
As per claim 9, Ben-Avi teaches
the plurality of the storage areas of the first device are obtained by dividing a storage area in a storage device included in the first device. (numbered software stacks indicate number of storage areas where storage area is divided based on number of stacks, paragraph [0107])
As per claim 10,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 11,
Ben-Avi does not explicitly indicate “rewriting one storage area of the plurality of the storage areas with a latest version of the first program and making a setting so as to switch the storage area used for the startup to the one storage area holding the latest version of the first program, when updating the first program of the first device; and causing a current version of the second program held in the storage area of the second device to be held in the storage, and rewriting the storage area of the second device with a latest version of the second program, when updating the second program of the second device”.
However, TORIUMI discloses “rewriting one storage area of the plurality of the storage areas with a latest version of the first program and making a setting so as to switch the storage area used for the startup to the one storage area holding the latest version of the first program, when updating the first program of the first device; and causing a current version of the second program held in the storage area of the second device to be held in the storage, and rewriting the storage area of the second device with a latest version of the second program, when updating the second program of the second device” (first and second storage areas, paragraph [0002], rewrite program with newer version based on update received, paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ben-Avi and TORIUMI because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by correcting defects or fixing problems in software (see TORIUMI, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of avoiding downtime due to software problems/defects.
As per claims 12-13,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 10-11 and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights