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 .
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination in this application. The application filing date on 08/29/2024. Claims 1 and 7 are independent.
Examiner notes
(A). Drawings submitted on 08/29/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d),
(B). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(C). Examiner has cited columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested by the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 VI and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Priority
This application claims priority to GERMANY DE102023208525.9 filed on 09/05/2023. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GERMANY DE102023208525.9, filed on 09/05/2023.
Abstract Objections
Abstract recites the numbers/texts inside parentheses and “means” in lines 6 should be removed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 3, “the current version” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Line 13, “the state” should have been --a state--.
Claim 3:
Line 2, “the integrity” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Lines 4 and 6, “the first version of the application software” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12 have the same issue.
Claim 5:
Line 2, “the integrity” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7:
In lines 2-7 replace “configured to store” with --storing--, respectively.
Lines 12 and 14, “the flag” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12 have the same issue.
Line 14, “the state” should have been --a state--.
Claim 9:
Line 2, “the integrity” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12:
Line 2, “the integrity” lacks proper antecedent basis
Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, and 13-16 are dependent claims of objected claims; therefor they inherit the same issues as in the base claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“processing means”, “electric storage means”, and “communication means” in claims will not be interpreted under 112(f) since they do not meet 3-prong analysis. “processing”, “electric storage” and “communication” modify “means” with sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3, lines 4 and 6, “the first version of the application software” are not clear. Claim 1, line 5 recites “a first version of the application software stored in a third memory”. However, prior to lines 4 and 6 of claim 3, there is no recitation of “the first version of the application software stored in the first memory” but “an application software stored in a first memory” (line 1 of claim 1) and “the current version of the software stored in the first memory” (line 3 of claim 1). For the purposes of examination, “the first version of the application software stored in the third memory” in lines 4 and 6-7 of claim 3, will be interpreted as --the first version of the application software stored in the third memory--, respectively.
Claims 5, 9, and 12 have the same issue.
Claims 4, 6, 10, and 13-16 depend on the rejected claims and inherit the same issue.
Claim 7, lines 12 and 14, “the flag” are not clear. Line 5 the claim recites “a fourth memory configured to store a flag”. However, prior to lines 12 and 14, there is no recitation of “the flag stored in the third memory”. For the purposes of examination, “the flag stored in the third memory” in lines 12 and 14 will be treated as --the flag stored in the fourth memory”.
Claims 8-16 depend on the rejected claim and inherit the same issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections.
Claim 7 would be allowable under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reason for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The closet prior arts as cited does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the claimed limitations.
I. The prior art by Polar et al. (US 20170220404 A1), discloses Apparatuses, systems, and method for validating and upgrading firmware in an intelligent electronic device (IED) are provided. In one aspect of the present disclosure, an IED is provided including at least one processor and at least one memory. The at least one memory includes at least a first firmware and a second firmware, where the second firmware is a version of the first firmware. The at least one processor determines if there is an error associated with the first firmware. If the processor determines there is no error associated with the first firmware, the processor executes first firmware. If the processor determines there is an error associated with the at least one firmware, the processor executes the second firmware, abstract).
II. The prior art by Wang et al. (US 20230418585 A1), discloses a method for generating an update package of software. Each installation package of the software includes multiple installation subpackages, and each installation subpackage includes multiple installation files. The method includes: obtaining first feature information and second feature information, the first feature information corresponds to the first installation subpackage, the second feature information corresponds to the second installation subpackage, the first installation subpackage is an installation subpackage in an installation package corresponding to a upgraded software version of the software, and the second installation subpackage is an installation subpackage corresponding to the first installation subpackage in an installation package corresponding to software version of the software before software upgrading; generating the update package for the software according to the first installation subpackage when the first feature information is different from the second feature information. This method can improve an efficiency of generation of the update package of the software, see abstract).
III. The prior art by Desai et al. (US 20230083633 A1), discloses a medical device communication system with a modular design to communicate with different types of medical devices, such as physiological sensors. The modular design is implemented using an extensible software library that provides a uniform framework for various applications or third party applications access to medical device data. The modular design also allows for regulated and unregulated portions of the system to be integrated into the system while allowing each portion to be updated separately. The regulated portion of the system may include components, such as sensors and the software library, that are subject to regulatory approval while the unregulated portion may include applications that are not subject to regulatory approval. Thus, the system enables a third party application developer to avoid having to submit the application to a regulatory agency for an application making use of the sensor data, see abstract).
The cited art of record Polar et al. (US 20170220404 A1), Wang et al. (US 20230418585 A1) and Desai et al. (US 20230083633 A1) do not explicitly disclose, teach, or suggest taken either singly and/or in combination functional limitations of “implementing the current version of the application software to set a flag stored in a fourth memory in a first state when the first identifier includes the predetermined sensor identifier, implementing the current version of the application software to boot the sensor to launch an initial software stored in a boot memory when the flag stored in the fourth memory is in the first state, implementing the initial software to read the flag stored in the fourth memory, and when the state of the flag is equal to the first state: implementing the initial software to replace the current version of the application software stored in the first memory by the first version of the application software stored in the third memory and to set the flag in a second state different from the first state so that the first memory stores the first version of the application software”, as recited in such manners in the independent claim 1 and “the current version of the application software to compare the predetermined sensor identifier with a first identifier of the first version of the application software, the current version of the application software to set the flag in a first state when the first identifier includes the predetermined sensor identifier and to boot the sensor to launch an initial software stored in the boot memory when the flag stored in the third memory is in the first state, the initial software to read the flag stored in the third memory, and when the state of the flag is equal to the first state, to replace the current version of the application software stored in the first memory by the first version of the application software stored in the third memory and sets the flag in a second state different from the first state”, in the independent claim 7.
The prior art of record does not teach and/or suggest these claimed limitations and they would not have been obvious; thus, all remaining pending clams would be allowed if overcome rejections and objection as cited in the above.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 (C) For Examples:
Lim et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0350669 A1) discloses control the transceiver to transfer the software update request to the software update server via the public network, control the transceiver to receive differential update data for the software of the at least one first IoT device from the software update server via the public network, generate a second version of the full update data for the software of the at least one first IoT device based on the first version and the differential update data, and control the transceiver to transmit the generated second version of the full update data of the at least one first IoT device to the at least one first IoT device via the public network based on a collected operational status of the software update gateway – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Parangattil et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0260635 A1) discloses updating software in a first wireless access point, the method comprising sending, by the first access point, an instruction to a client device associated with the first wireless access point to roam to a second wireless access point in a wireless local area network (WLAN), determining that the client device is no longer associated with the first access point, and performing a software update on the first wireless access point – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Acharya et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0076669 A1) discloses send messages to the broker for routing to other registered electronic devices. In this way, the broker may act as an intermediary to route communications using the eSync bus protocol. A multi-client architecture is also provided in which multiple domains may be defined by the functions performed by electronic devices within a respective domain – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Crosby et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0355900 A1) discloses determine which software elements identifiers correspond to which software elements. This provides a level of indirection which can be used to make software updates more efficient, by updating only parts of the software while leaving old parts of the software as they are. Updated software elements can be stored to memory and the mapping information updated to point to the new elements, while existing mappings may be retained – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Polar et al. (US 20170220404 A1), discloses Apparatuses, systems, and method for validating and upgrading firmware in an intelligent electronic device (IED) are provided. In one aspect of the present disclosure, an IED is provided including at least one processor and at least one memory. The at least one memory includes at least a first firmware and a second firmware, where the second firmware is a version of the first firmware. The at least one processor determines if there is an error associated with the first firmware. If the processor determines there is no error associated with the first firmware, the processor executes first firmware. If the processor determines there is an error associated with the at least one firmware, the processor executes the second firmware.
Wang et al. (US 20230418585 A1), discloses a method for generating an update package of software. Each installation package of the software includes multiple installation subpackages, and each installation subpackage includes multiple installation files. The method includes: obtaining first feature information and second feature information, the first feature information corresponds to the first installation subpackage, the second feature information corresponds to the second installation subpackage, the first installation subpackage is an installation subpackage in an installation package corresponding to a upgraded software version of the software, and the second installation subpackage is an installation subpackage corresponding to the first installation subpackage in an installation package corresponding to software version of the software before software upgrading; generating the update package for the software according to the first installation subpackage when the first feature information is different from the second feature information. This method can improve an efficiency of generation of the update package of the software.
Desai et al. (US 20230083633 A1), discloses a medical device communication system with a modular design to communicate with different types of medical devices, such as physiological sensors. The modular design is implemented using an extensible software library that provides a uniform framework for various applications or third party applications access to medical device data. The modular design also allows for regulated and unregulated portions of the system to be integrated into the system while allowing each portion to be updated separately. The regulated portion of the system may include components, such as sensors and the software library, that are subject to regulatory approval while the unregulated portion may include applications that are not subject to regulatory approval. Thus, the system enables a third party application developer to avoid having to submit the application to a regulatory agency for an application making use of the sensor data.
Shibata et al. (US 20210192038 A1), as can be seen in the foregoing, the present disclosure is directed to the banknote handling apparatus 1 that handles a medium, and includes the first memory device (memory device 181) having the tamper resistance, the second memory device (memory device 171) that stores pieces of software of a plurality of kinds, and the processor 170 that executes the pieces of software. The first memory device is provided with: the memory area 181a that stores pieces of verification information V used for verification of the validity of the pieces of software as a list which enables a search for the verification information V by version of the software; and the memory area 181b that stores the identification information idr for identifying an executable version from the list. The verification information includes the identifier id of the version and the verification value H calculated based on the valid piece of software corresponding to the identifier id.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Kabir whose telephone number is (571)270-13411. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Sough can be reached on (571) 272-6799. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights