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 1-20 have been examined.
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, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulusu (US 11,157,265) in view of Mensch (US 11,593,526).
Per Claim 1:
Bulusu teaches a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (e.g. see Fig. 1), cause performance of operations comprising: installing downloaded software in the memory as installed software, the downloaded software associated with a software update for the device ("... In an aspect of the present subject matter, multistage firmware update may be performed to minimize the downtime during a firmware update and to maintain the state of virtual machines. During a first stage, the update may be written to a secondary non-volatile memory instead of the SPI memory and in a second or subsequent stage, the update from the secondary non-volatile memory may be copied to primary non-volatile memory to apply the update. The secondary non-volatile memory of a computing system may be understood to be an auxiliary memory, which is provided in addition to the main or primary non-volatile memory of the computing system. " in column 2, line 63 to column 3, line 6). Bulusu does not explicitly teach recording information that identifies hardware components that are currently installed in the device; powering off the device; powering on the device; detecting, by analyzing the information, that a hardware component of the hardware components has been replaced with a different hardware component; and reporting an error.
However, Mensch teaches recording information that identifies hardware components that are currently installed in the device; powering off the device; powering on the device; detecting, by analyzing the information, that a hardware component of the hardware components has been replaced with a different hardware component; and reporting an error (e.g. see Fig. 3 and “… In some examples, the initialization or boot-up sequence includes querying a plurality of components that are installed on the device. In some examples, at 304, the device determines a unique identifier associated with the first component of the first component type. For example, during the initialization sequence, the processor(s) of device 320 queries the component to provide its unique identifier and in response to the query, the component provides the processor with the component's unique identifier. In some examples, the processor queries a controller that communicates with the respective component for the respective component's unique ID, such as a display controller or a battery management unit. At 306, device 320 compares the component's unique identifier against an expected identifier for the respective component's component type. In some examples, device 320 (e.g., the processor(s) of device 320) queries an expected ID database to determine the expected identifier for the respective component type. For example, the expected ID database can include an entry for each component type. In some examples, the expected ID entry can be a key-value pair (e.g., or a hash table) that associates the component type with the expected ID. The expected ID can be initially populated during manufacture time or can be updated during a previous repair session. … At 306, if the unique identifier does not match the expected identifier, then device 320 determines that the first component has been replaced with another component. In some examples, device 320 will then initiate a process for authenticating the newly installed component, associating the newly installed component with device 320, and updating the expected ID database with newly installed component's unique ID. In some examples, the process for authenticating the newly installed component and updating the expected ID comprises transmitting a request to server 330 to authenticate the newly installed component. In some examples, the transmitted request includes the unique identifier of the first component. In some examples, the transmitted request includes the unique identifier of device 320. … In some examples, in response to receiving the indication from the server, device 320 continues and/or completes the initialization or boot-up sequence. … In some examples, in response to receiving an indication that the authenticated was not successful or in accordance with an indication that the indication indicates that the authentication was not successful, the device displays (318) an indication that the association was not authenticated. In some examples, the indication that the association was not authenticated is displayed on a status user interface for the respective component. In some examples, the indication is displayed as a persistent or dismissible notification (e.g., on a wake/lock screen user interface, on a notification user interface, as a pop-up notification, etc.). In some examples, the displayed indication indicates that the installed component could not be authenticated, could not be successfully associated with the device, may not be an authentic component and/or may not function properly. In some examples, the indication is displayed for a threshold amount of time (e.g., 3 days, 5 days, 7 days) or for a threshold number of device reboots (e.g., 2, 3, 5 reboots), after which the indication is not displayed. …” in column 8, line 16 to column 9, line 17; column 14, line 54 to column 15, line 13 and “error codes” in column 17, lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Bulusu to include recording information that identifies hardware components that are currently installed in the device; powering off the device; powering on the device; detecting, by analyzing the information, that a hardware component of the hardware components has been replaced with a different hardware component; and reporting an error using the teaching of Mensch. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to authenticate components installed in an electronic device (Mensch, column 1, lines 15-19).
Per Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Mensch further teaches wherein detecting that the hardware component has been replaced comprises comparing a serial number in the information with a current serial number read from a currently-installed hardware component (column 8, lines 29-34).
Per Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Mensch further teaches wherein the operations further comprise, in response to detecting that the hardware component has been replaced, outputting a periodic alert (column 14, line 54 to column 15, line 13).
Per Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Mensch further teaches wherein the operations further comprise, in response to detecting that the hardware component has been replaced, disabling the device so that the device is temporarily unusable (column 15, lines 14-29).
Per Claims 10-11 & 13-14:
These are method versions of the claimed device discussed above (claims 1-2 and 4-5, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also obvious.
Per Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and Bulusu further teaches wherein: the memory comprises second memory; the method further comprises, prior to installing the downloaded software in the second memory: downloading software from an external device to first memory of the device as the downloaded software (column 2, line 63 to column 3, line 6); performing, by the device, a first integrity check on the downloaded software; and determining, by the device, that the downloaded software passed the first integrity check; installing the downloaded software is in response to the downloaded software having passed the first integrity check (column 3, line 30 to column 4, line 8); and the method further comprises, after installing the downloaded software in the second memory, and prior to recording the information, performing, by the device, a second integrity check on the installed software (column 7, lines 3-15).
Per Claim 19:
This is a method version of the claimed device discussed above (claim 1, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above, including “an unauthorized hardware component installed in the device by analyzing the information; or a deteriorating or malfunctioning hardware component of the hardware components by performing a hardware integrity check” (Mensch, column 8, line 16 to column 9, line 17). Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Per Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 19 is incorporated, and Mensch further teaches wherein performing the hardware integrity check comprises analyzing electrical parameters associated with the hardware components (column 5, lines 21-50).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulusu (US 11,157,265) in view of Mensch (US 11,593,526), and further in view of Cashman (US 2014/0052463).
Per Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Bulusu does not explicitly teach wherein the error comprises a recommendation that a user contact service personnel.
However, Cashman teaches wherein the error comprises a recommendation that a user contact service personnel (pg. 41, 2nd column, lines 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Bulusu to include wherein the error comprises a recommendation that a user contact service personnel using the teaching of Cashman. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide medical services in a more convenient, timely and cost-effective manner (Cashman, 0005-0007).
Per Claim 12:
This is a method version of the claimed device discussed above (claim 3, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulusu (US 11,157,265) in view of Mensch (US 11,593,526), and further in view of Shelton (US 2022/0104822).
Per Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Bulusu does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware component comprises a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA).
However, Shelton teaches wherein the hardware component comprises a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) (par. 0696).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Bulusu to include wherein the hardware component comprises a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) using the teaching of Shelton. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a processing capability or bandwidth for the identification of an appropriate service tier (Shelton, par. 0024).
Per Claim 17:
This is a method version of the claimed device discussed above (claim 8, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulusu (US 11,157,265) in view of Mensch (US 11,593,526), and further in view of Sturman (US 2020/0221263).
Per Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Bulusu does not explicitly teach wherein the device is an external defibrillator.
However, Sturman teaches wherein the device is an external defibrillator (i.e. see " updating the defibrillator's firmware " in abstract; par. 0005 and 0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Bulusu to include wherein the device is an external defibrillator using the teaching of Sturman. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop and deploy automated external defibrillators (Sturman, par. 0004).
Per Claim 16:
This is a method version of the claimed device discussed above (claim 9, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caklovic (US 2017/0255779) teaches a method for performing an integrity check on software.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights