DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application 18/783,340, which was filed on 07/24/2024, listing the inventors as Marco Redaelli and the applicant as Micron Technology, Inc.
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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1, 6, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Firmware Over-the-air Programming Techniques for IoT Networks – A Survey” to Arakadakis et al. (herein Arakadakis).
Claim 1
Arakadakis discloses a method (Arakadakis: page 178:11-12, section 3.1.7, “In-place Patching”) comprising:
receiving, by a memory subsystem, an activate command for firmware of the memory subsystem (Arakadakis: the command is shown by the process/instructions to carry out the updating), wherein the firmware comprises a core firmware subportion (Arakadakis: page 178:11, section 3.1.7, the sections/segments of firmware not being updated and thus not halted/suspended) and a diagnostic firmware subportion (Arakadakis: page 178:11, section 3.1.7, the code segments to be updated/suspended; note, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “diagnostic” is nothing more than a label and imparts no actual functionality as claimed), content of the diagnostic firmware subportion differs from content of the core firmware subportion (Arakadakis: “parts of the firmware that have be altered”, and thus different), and the diagnostic firmware subportion and the core firmware subportion execute independently of one another (Arakadakis: avoiding system reboots by allowing some firmware to be halted/suspended while the other firmware is not halted/suspended shows independence);
activating the core firmware subportion to cause the memory subsystem to operate using the core firmware subportion in response to the received activate command (Arakadakis: page 178:11, section 3.1.7, the sections/segments of firmware not being updated and thus not halted/suspended or in other words, activated or remaining active, i.e. activated); and
deactivating the diagnostic firmware subportion to prevent the memory subsystem from operating using the diagnostic firmware subportion in response to the received activate command (Arakadakis: page 178:11, section 3.1.7, “the code segments being updated must be suspended”).
Claim 6
Arakadakis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the memory subsystem, a deactivate command for the firmware; and deactivating the diagnostic firmware subportion based on the deactivate command, wherein the deactivation prevents the memory subsystem from using the diagnostic firmware subportion (Arakadakis: for the same reasons as discussed for claim 1; the activate command is also a deactivate command in that one firmware portion is to be active and another firmware portion is to be halted/suspended).
Claims 8 and 13
The limitations of claims 8 and 13 correspond to the limitations of claim 1 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
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) 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Firmware Over-the-air Programming Techniques for IoT Networks – A Survey” to Arakadakis et al. (herein Arakadakis).
Claim 2
Arakadakis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the update of the diagnostic firmware subportion does not update the core firmware subportion (Arakadakis: page 1787:11, section 3.1.7, code updates/patches for “replacing a specific part of the current firmware”, i.e. the update/suspended, “diagnostic” firmware portion). Arakadakis does not explicitly state receiving a firmware download command in the context of the active/suspended firmware discussed above for claim 1 (i.e. Arakadakis, section 3.1.7), or updating the diagnostic firmware subportion based on the download command. However, Arakadakis demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive download commands for firmware (Arakadakis: pages 178:28-178:32, section 5, discussing several processes/commands for downloading firmware updates), and updating the update/suspended, “diagnostic” firmware portion based on downloading (Arakadakis: the update processes of section 5, for example page 178:28, section 5.1, Mender, “in case software updates exist … is responsible for downloading and installing it …”; in view of page 178:11-12, section 3.1.7, updating suspended firmware portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the updating suspended firmware portion of section 3.1.7 of Arakadakis with the updating based on downloading/installing needed/existing updates as suggested by the teachings of section 5 of Arakadakis. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: Arakadakis reveals firmware systems often have limited resources and/or need fixes, thus requiring acquiring/downloading updates (Arakadakis: pages 178:2-178:4, section 1); the implementation of is an application of known elements and techniques (downloading firmware/software for updating/installing) yielding a predictable result; and Arakadakis provides a collection of various combinable teachings discussing updating/installing firmware/software at various stages, including downloading the updates (Arakadakis: pages 178:2-178:4, section 1).
Claim 3
Arakadakis discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the download command includes the activate command and wherein activating the core firmware subportion is in response to receiving the download command (Arakadakis: for the same reasons as discussed in claim 2).
Claim 5
Arakadakis does not explicitly state wherein the memory subsystem includes a plurality of firmware slots and wherein the core firmware subportion and the diagnostic firmware subportion are stored in different firmware slots of the plurality of firmware slots in the context of the active/suspended firmware discussed above for claim 1 (i.e. Arakadakis, section 3.1.7). However, Arakadakis demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one portion of firmware in one slot and other portion of firmware in another slot (Arakadakis: pages 178:28, section 5, “… such as atomic software installation, easy rollback to previous software version (e.g., through A/B update that alternates two slots/partitions for loading and storing the new software) …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the updating suspended firmware portion of section 3.1.7 of Arakadakis with a plurality of slots for the firmware, including non-updated/non-suspended firmware in at least one slot and updated/suspended firmware in at least another slot as suggested by the teachings of section 5 of Arakadakis. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: Arakadakis reveals multiple slots provides for “robust, reliable, and secure” programming/updates (Arakadakis: pages 178:28, section 5); the implementation of is an application of known elements and techniques yielding a predictable result; and Arakadakis provides that such an arrangement allows for atomic software installation, easy rollback of software version, and update failure management (Arakadakis: pages 178:28, section 5), thus allowing for effective management of the section 3.1.7 updated/suspended firmware portion.
Claims 9-10, 12, 16, 18-19
The limitations of claims 9-10, 12, 16, 18-19 correspond to the limitations of claims 2-3, 5-6 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Claim 15
The limitations of claim 15 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-2 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Firmware Over-the-air Programming Techniques for IoT Networks – A Survey” to Arakadakis et al. (herein Arakadakis) in view of US 11,893,379 B2 to Nachimuthu et al. (herein Nachimuthu).
Claim 4
Arakadakis does not explicitly state wherein the activate command comprises a memory initialize instruction, and wherein activating the core firmware subportion comprises: performing a warm start of the memory subsystem to cause the memory subsystem to operate using the core firmware subportion in response to the warm start. Nachimuthu demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a memory initialization instruction/process (Nachimuthu: figure 8B, 122), and in when updating firmware (Nachimuthu: 10:45-49) to conduct a warm restart of a system if supported (Nachimuthu: figure 8B; 10:45-11:8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement activation of firmware in Arakadakis with performing a warm start as suggested by the teachings of Nachimuthu. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: both references are directed to firmware updating; and Arakadakis is attempting to reduce system reboots and keep the system functioning in real-time (Arakadakis: page 178:11, section 3.1.7) and as such would find a warm restart (without a full shutdown and start) desirable once an update is available (Nachimuthu: 10:45-49).
Claims 11 and 17
The limitations of claims 11 and 17 correspond to the limitations of claim 4 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, are 20 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights