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 on 07/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an)
abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible
subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
However, the limitations “generating an updated directory in a system partition of the system based on the update file, the updated directory corresponding to the updated system configuration of the first partition” and “modifying a partition table associated with the first partition and the second partition such that the system is configured to boot using the updated system configuration of the first partition and the updated directory upon rebooting” as drafted, are functions that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application the
additional elements. This claim recites the following additional elements “a processing device; and a memory device including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations”, “receiving an update file to generate an updated version of software executed by the system, the update file corresponding to an update request generated while running an active system configuration of the system”, and “generating an updated system configuration by applying the update file to an inactive system configuration of the system associated with a first partition while the active system configuration corresponding to a second partition remains operational”. The additional elements “a system”, “processing device”, and “memory device” merely recites generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception. The additional element “receiving…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. The additional element “generating an updated system configuration…” in the context of this claim is merely an “Apply it” step and as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea of a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the limitations “a system”, “processing device”, and “memory device” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, the limitation “receiving…” have been identified by the courts as mere data gathering which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “generating an updated system configuration…” does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it’ to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 and 4 recites “executing…” and “wherein the current directory is used to execute” in the context of the claim is merely an “Apply it” step as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 5-7 recite further mental processes in “determining, based on a kernel argument…”, “determining a set of unchanged files…”, “determining that the update is inoperative”, and “determining, based on a boot counter”. Further, claim 3 and 5-6 discloses additional elements “in response to determining…”, “based on the set of unchanged files, generating…”, and “in response to determining that the updated version of software is inoperative…” in the context of the claim is merely an “Apply it” and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim set 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim set 1-7 for having similar limitations. Additionally, claim 15 recites non-transitory medium, which merely recites
generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception.
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, 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) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20250298900 A1) hereinafter Yang in view of Wang (US 20230393840 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses
A system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising: (Yang [0004]-[0006] discloses system comprising memory with one or more processors to execute instructions)
receiving an update file to generate an updated version of software executed by the system, the update file corresponding to an update request generated while running an active system configuration of the system; (Yang [0016] discloses the XIP system having a first and second partition, where the XIP may currently be running on either partition, making it the boot partition. The other partition is the non-boot partition, which is then communicated to the server, and the server then sends a version of the firmware update file specific to the non-boot partition while the boot partition is still active).
generating an updated system configuration by applying the update file to an inactive system configuration of the system associated with a first partition while the active system configuration corresponding to a second partition remains operational; (Yang [0029] and [0040]-[0041] discloses while one partition stores the original firmware, the other partition stores the newly received firmware update files, allowing the system to continue running uninterrupted while a firmware update is written to a separate partition).
modifying a partition table associated with the first partition and the second partition such that the system is configured to boot using the updated system configuration of the first partition and the updated directory upon rebooting. (Yang [0037]-[0041] and figure 3 discloses remapping the partitions based on which partition contains the updated firmware. The system then sets the non-boot partition comprising the firmware update file to be a boot partition (inactive to active) the next time the system starts/boots up).
Yang lacks explicitly
generating an updated directory in a system partition of the system based on the update file, the updated directory corresponding to the updated system configuration of the first partition; and
Wang teaches
generating an updated directory in a system partition of the system based on the update file, the updated directory corresponding to the updated system configuration of the first partition; and (Wang [0057] and [0104] discloses creating an updated directory by merging the directory of the update data package and the directory of the to-be-updated file package. Then upgrade is done using two complete system partitions: an active and passive system. The passive system is directly updated and notifies the bootloader to switch after restart, thus showing the updated directory corresponds to the updated system configuration of the partition and then used after restart).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “generating an updated directory in a system partition of the system based on the update file, the updated directory corresponding to the updated system configuration of the first partition; and” in order to have the system be able switch location of where to boot the newly updated partition, and thus allows for the separation between the active and inactive system configurations. This further provides system efficiency and uptime, as the separate directories allow one configuration to be uninterrupted while the other is updated, and allows for quickly switching to a newly updated configuration without downtime.
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, subsequent to modifying the partition table: executing a reboot of the system to switch from the active system configuration to the updated system configuration, wherein the system previously booted using the second partition prior to receiving the update file. (Yang [0041] discloses after a reboot, the partition with the firmware update file is now made the boot partition, while the other partition that was active is now the non-boot partition and reserved for storing another firmware update file).
Yang lacks explicitly
executing a reboot
Wang teaches
executing a reboot (Wang [0186] and [0110] discloses the first restart unit is configured to set a first upgrade parameter in a bootloader to a first value and generate a primary restart instruction when it is detected that downloading of the update data package is completed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “executing a reboot” in order to allow the system to automatically update itself once update is complete and letting the newly updated system be available as soon as possible, thus increasing system efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses
The system of claim 2
Yang explicitly
wherein executing the reboot of the system further comprises: determining, based on a kernel argument of the first partition, that the first partition corresponds to the updated directory; and
in response to determining that the first partition corresponds to the updated directory, completing the reboot of the system using the updated directory.
Wang teaches
wherein executing the reboot of the system further comprises: determining, based on a kernel argument of the first partition, that the first partition corresponds to the updated directory; and (Wang [0186] and [0101]-[0104] discloses that the parameters are set to notify the bootloader of the partition with the upgrade package, which also consists of the directory to the updated partition).
in response to determining that the first partition corresponds to the updated directory, completing the reboot of the system using the updated directory. (Wang [0186], [0088], and [0101]-[0110] discloses that after the partition that contains the update is selected, which also contains the path of the file in the directory, the restart is conducted where the passive system with the update is switched to active and the upgrade is completed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “wherein executing the reboot of the system further comprises: determining, based on a kernel argument of the first partition, that the first partition corresponds to the updated directory; and in response to determining that the first partition corresponds to the updated directory, completing the reboot of the system using the updated directory” in order to ensure the system is pointing to the correct directory of the newly updated system, thus providing an efficient transition to the new system on reboot.
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses
The system of claim 1
Yang lacks explicitly
wherein the system partition comprises a filesystem including the updated directory and a current directory different from the updated directory, and wherein the current directory is used to execute the active system configuration associated with the second partition.
Wang teaches
wherein the system partition comprises a filesystem including the updated directory and a current directory different from the updated directory, and wherein the current directory is used to execute the active system configuration associated with the second partition. (Wang [0067], [0074]-[0080], [0126], and [0158] discloses two different directories, one being the directory of new version files and the other consisting of old versions files. The root directory, i.e. the directory currently active, is changed once the OTA package succeeds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “wherein the system partition comprises a filesystem including the updated directory and a current directory different from the updated directory, and wherein the current directory is used to execute the active system configuration associated with the second partition” in order to have separate directories allowing for the update to proceed without interrupting the current actively running directory, thus preventing system disruption/downtime.
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses
The system of claim 4
Yang lacks explicitly
wherein generating the updated directory further comprises: determining a set of unchanged files between the update file and a current version of the software associated with the current directory;
and based on the set of unchanged files, generating the updated directory by including one or more mappings to share the set of unchanged files between the updated directory and the current directory.
Wang teaches
wherein generating the updated directory further comprises: determining a set of unchanged files between the update file and a current version of the software associated with the current directory; (Wang [0100] discloses for performing the update, the method includes replacing, deleting, adding, maintain or the like. During this determination step on each file, a fourth file is identified as a file not involved in the update data package and needs to be used, thus during the update method, the fourth file is maintained unchanged).
and based on the set of unchanged files, generating the updated directory by including one or more mappings to share the set of unchanged files between the updated directory and the current directory. (Wang [0086]-[0087] discloses while making the updated directory, the path of the fourth file is added to the mount directory, thus providing a map to share the unchanged/fourth file from the current directory to the updated directory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “wherein generating the updated directory further comprises: determining a set of unchanged files between the update file and a current version of the software associated with the current directory; and based on the set of unchanged files, generating the updated directory by including one or more mappings to share the set of unchanged files between the updated directory and the current directory” in order to maintain unchanged files in the newly updated directory, thus keeping original files that are still needed, i.e., settings/configurations, therefore preventing unnecessary additional work or computational resources to be used.
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses
The system of claim 1
Yang lacks explicitly
wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative; and in response to determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative, applying a rollback process to boot the system using the second partition that was previously operational.
Wang teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative; and in response to determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative, applying a rollback process to boot the system using the second partition that was previously operational. (Wang [0124]-[0128] and [0142] discloses that when the verification fails, the parameters are set to a failure state. The system then falls back by deleting the upgrade package, canceling the call, and loading the original file system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative; and in response to determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative, applying a rollback process to boot the system using the second partition that was previously operational” in order to prevent system malfunctions/errors, thus improving the reliability and efficiency of the system.
With regards to claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
With regards to claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
With regards to claim 15, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 16, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 17, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 18, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 19, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
With regards to claim 20, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20250298900 A1) hereinafter Yang in view of Wang (US 20230393840 A1) in further view of Hiremath et al. (US 20240248724 A1) hereinafter Hiremath.
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Wang discloses
The system of claim 6
Yang in view of Wang lacks explicitly
wherein determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative further comprises: determining, based on a boot counter, that a boot count of the system has exceeded a predefined threshold, wherein the boot counter is configured to update the boot count in response to a boot of the system being attempted.
Hiremath teaches
wherein determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative further comprises: determining, based on a boot counter, that a boot count of the system has exceeded a predefined threshold, wherein the boot counter is configured to update the boot count in response to a boot of the system being attempted. (Hiremath [0097]-[0101] discloses a boot counter and once a boot attempt counter is greater than a threshold, the system determines that the active partition is to be changed so that the standby partition becomes the current partition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yang in view of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Hiremath to “wherein determining that the updated version of the software is inoperative further comprises: determining, based on a boot counter, that a boot count of the system has exceeded a predefined threshold, wherein the boot counter is configured to update the boot count in response to a boot of the system being attempted” in order to determine that the boot has failed too many times and rollback to the previous partition, thus preventing boot failure and system downtime.
With regards to claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights