DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recites the limitation of “…configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system…” and it is unclear what operation mode is being controlled. Is it the operation mode of operating system, operation mode of the home appliance/system, an operation mode of individual circuits and/or operation mode of control for the purpose of examination it is being interpreted as the operation mode of the appliance appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-16 and 18-19 depend from the claims above and do not overcome the issue and thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 4 recites “…wherein a part of the operating system and the framework correspond to a common platform” where it is unclear what is meant by “a common platform” is the platform common in that both the operating system and framework are part of/associated with it which is how it is interpreted for claim analysis, is it common in that it is a platform that is a commonly used platform appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 18 and 20 recites the limitation of “the server”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as there is inconsistent use between “the sever” and “the external server” terms throughout and thus unclear if reference to the same sever of a different sever it is being interpreted as the same server but appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “…he second processor is configured to execute an operating system, execute a common framework in a part on the operating system...” where it is unclear what “the operating system” recited here is referencing as both this claim and its parent claim 1 recite “an operating system” is this claim referencing the same operating system as parent claim 1, which is how it is interpreted for claim analysis, or does this claim reference a different operating system appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 also recites “…execute a common framework in a part on the operating system…” where it is unclear what is meant by “a common framework” and why/what is it that makes it a common framework, is it any framework shared that can be viewed as common, is it common framework if that allows various applications to execute through it, it is common if general as opposed to device/appliance specific applications to execute which is how it is interpreted for claim analysis, appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 16 depends from claim 14 above and does not overcome this issue and thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 15 recites “…execute a common framework in a part on the operating system…” where it is unclear what is meant by “a common framework” and why/what is it that makes it a common framework, is it any framework shared that can be viewed as common, is it common framework if that allows various applications to execute through it, it is common if general as opposed to device/appliance specific applications to execute which is how it is interpreted for claim analysis, appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation of “…controlling an operating system-based operation mode…” and it is unclear what operation mode is being controlled. Is it the operation mode of operating system or operation mode of the home appliance, for the purpose of examination it is being interpreted as the operation mode of the appliance appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0246977 A1) and further in view of Maeng (Patent No. US 8,850251 B1).
As to claim 1, Parsons discloses a home appliance comprising: a first circuit including a first processor for load control or safety control (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8 and [0020] lines 1-3; which shows a plurality of devices as part of the control system where individual devices can include their own/first processor as part of their device/circuit and where a device can be one for controlling the load/lighting load associated with the device ); and
a second circuit connected to the first circuit by wire or wirelessly, configured to control, and including a second processor configured to perform an upgrade, based on upgrade information received from an external server or a mobile terminal (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8, [0019] lines 1-7, [0022] lines 3-9, [0024] lines 1-3, [0031] lines 6-8, [0041] lines 1-8; which shows a plurality of devices as part of control system and thus configured to control operations where each device has its own processor, and thus including second processor with a plurality of control devices, as part of its device/circuit where code is used to enable the device to perform functions that can include the devices being able communicate over a bridge/wirelessly between each other and able to perform update based on received update information from a separate/external to the device server).
Parsons does not specifically disclose the specifics of a second circuit configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system.
However, Maeng discloses the specifics of a second circuit configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system (Maeng Col. 1 line 65- Col. 2 line 2 and Col. 6 lines 35-37; which shows the specifics of the control system controlling power mode/operation mode based on operating system configuration that in light of the teachings above of Parsons showing the specifics of a plurality of devices/circuits include a second circuit/device configure to control components/operations of devices can show the specifics of a second circuit configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Maeng showing the specifics of controlling operation based on an operating system into the controlling system of Parsons for the purpose of increasing adaptability of the control system with additional control options for use, as taught by Maeng Col. 6 lines 35-37.
As to claim 7, Parsons discloses wherein the first circuit is updated based on firmware update information received from the server or the mobile terminal, and the second circuit is updated based on the firmware update information or software update information received from the server or the mobile terminal (Parsons [0014] lines 1-6, [0015] lines 1-14, [0019] lines 1-14 [0022] lines 3-9, [0024] lines 1-3, [0030] lines 1-6 and [0041] lines 1-8; which shows the control system made up of a plurality of devices/circuits where they can be implemented in a plurality of ways including software, firmware or any combination of the ways to perform its function thus viewed first circuit have firmware code and other/second device/circuit can have software or firmware code to update, where the update is received from external/remote service where a plurality of devices can be connected to the remote/external server through a network and receive the update directly from the server).
As to claim 9, Parsons discloses wherein the second circuit further comprises a transceiver configured to perform wireless communication with the server or the mobile terminal (Parson [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8, [0016] lines 1-7,[ [0022] lines 3-9, [0024] lines 1-3 and [0030] lines 1-6; which shows a plurality of devices as part of control system including a second device, where devices are capable of communication with an external/remote server to receive updates through a communication unit/transceiver that can communicate through wireless communication).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons and Maeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howitt et al. (Patent No. US 9,259,113 B2).
As to claim 2, Parsons discloses further comprising a third circuit including a third processor (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8, [0019] lines 1-7 and [0022] lines 3-9 and Fig. 1; which shows the control system made up of a plurality of control devices/circuits that as seen in the figure 1 can include 3 device/circuits and associated processor and thus the specifics of a third circuit including a third processor in a control system )
Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose the specifics of a third circuit including a third processor configured to control a light emitting diode or a display.
However, Howitt discloses a third circuit including a third processor configured to control a light emitting diode or a display (Howitt Col. 15 lines 43-45; which shows a control device/circuit that is used in controlling an LED/light emitting diode where it is seen in the teachings of Parsons above the specifics of system with a plurality of control devices/circuit that make it up thus including the specifics of a third circuit and together disclose the specifics of comprising a third circuit including a third processor configured to control a light emitting diode or a display ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Howitt showing the specifics of a control device for controlling a light emitting diode into the plurality of control devices for controlling elements of appliances of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the control system through control of additional elements, as taught by Howitt Col. 15 lines 43-45.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons and Maeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of George (Pub. No. US 2012/0123910 A1)
As to claim 3 Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose wherein the second processor is configured to execute the operating system, execute a framework on the operating system, and execute a system application, an application related to the operation mode, or a download application on the framework.
However, George discloses wherein the second processor is configured to execute the operating system, execute a framework on the operating system, and execute a system application, an application related to the operation mode, or a download application on the framework (George [0046] lines 3-8 and 17-28; which shows device/circuit associated with a processor and operating system where the device/system is able to install a platform associated with an application, where the platform is a software framework that uses the computers operating system to download, update, verify and execute application client, viewed as being able to execute an operating system, execute a framework on the operating system and download an application on the framework based on it being part of the platform, where the specifics of the second processor that is controlled by code to perform functions/actions is seen disclosed above in the teachings of Parsons and thus together can be viewed as disclosing wherein the second processor is configured to execute the operating system, execute a framework on the operating system, and execute a system application, an application related to the operation mode, or a download application on the framework ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of George showing the specifics of system device that device and processor that perform actions associated with downloading and installing platform and application on device into the configuring device with processors to perform specific functions based on associated code of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the device by configuring it to perform additional functions and actions to address different instructions as taught by George [0046] lines 3-8 and 17-28.
As to claim 4, Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose, however, George discloses wherein a part of the operating system and the framework correspond to a common platform (George [0046] lines 24-28; which shows that the software framework using the operating system to install a platform that can include common platform and as the OS and framework are used to install this platform viewed as common to both operating system and framework).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of George showing the specifics of system device that device and processor that perform actions associated with downloading and installing platform and application on device into the configuring device with processors to perform specific functions based on associated code of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the device by configuring it to perform additional functions and actions to address different instructions as taught by George[0046] lines 3-8 and 17-28.
Claims 5-6, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons and Maeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yunoki (Pub. No. US 2021/0365023 A1)
As to claim 5, Parsons discloses wherein update information is received from the external server or the mobile terminal (Parsons [0014] lines 1-6, [0022] lines 3-9 and [0024] lines 1-3; which shows the update code/information is received for a server that is separate/external to the system).
Parsons as modified by Maeng does not specifically disclose a reception interval of software update information received from the server or the mobile terminal is shorter than a reception interval of firmware update information received from the server or the mobile terminal.
However, Yunoki discloses a reception interval of software update information received from the server or the mobile terminal is shorter than a reception interval of firmware update information received from the server or the mobile terminal (Yunoki [0031] lines 3-11 and [0042] lines 6-14; which shows being able to determine marginal time/reception interval for the update that can include both software update and firmware update, where the marginal time for the firmware update is 48 hours as compared to the marginal time for the software update which is one hour thus showing the reception interval of the software update is shorter/less than the reception interval for the firmware update received).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yunoki showing the use of marginal time in scheduling when software and firmware is updated into the updating of Parson as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing security and control over update by being able to determine additional information as to how update can affect the system and access its impact so to limit impact, as taught by Yunoki [0002] lines 3-16, [0003] lines 7-13 and [0031] lines 3-11.
As to claim 6, Parsons discloses wherein the second processor is configured to perform an update, based on update information received from the external server or the mobile terminal (Parsons [0014] lines 1-6, [0022] lines 3-9, [0024] lines 1-3 and [0041] lines 1-8; which shows the update code/information is received for a server that is separate/external to the system and capable of performing its own updates).
Parsons as modified by Maeng does not specifically disclose wherein a software update interval of the second circuit is shorter than a firmware update interval of the first circuit.
However, Yunoki discloses wherein a software update interval of the second circuit is shorter than a firmware update interval of the first circuit (Yunoki [0031] lines 3-11 and [0042] lines 6-14; which shows being able to determine marginal time/reception interval for the update that can include both software update and firmware update, where the marginal time for the firmware update is 48 hours as compared to the marginal time for the software update which is one hour thus showing interval for the software update is less than the interval for the firmware update, where the specifics of the first and second circuit and the ability to update the device/circuits to receive updates is seen disclosed above in the teachings of Parson and thus together show wherein a software update interval of the second circuit is shorter than a firmware update interval of the first circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yunoki showing the use of marginal time in scheduling when software and firmware is updated into the updating of Parson as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing security and control over update by being able to determine additional information as to how update can affect the system and access its impact so to limit impact, as taught by Yunoki [0002] lines 3-16, [0003] lines 7-13 and [0031] lines 3-11.
As to claim 10, Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose, however, Yunoki discloses wherein the first circuit further comprises a memory configured to store firmware for load control or safety control, wherein the second circuit further comprises a memory configured to store the operating system (Yunoki [0003] lines 1-7, [0053] lines 1-13 and [0060] lines 1-8; which shows having a plurality of devices/circuits in a control system with a first device/circuit/PLC that have firmware installed thus having memory configured for the installed/stored firmware and another device/second device to control manage the PLC that include memory and processor that execute under an OS thus have the OS stored therein, where the specifics of a first control device for load or safety control is seen specifically disclosed above in the teachings of Parsons and thus together viewed as disclosing wherein the first circuit further comprises a memory configured to store firmware for load control or safety control, wherein the second circuit further comprises a memory configured to store the operating system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yunoki showing the use of marginal time in scheduling when software and firmware is updated into the updating of Parson as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing security and control over update by being able to determine additional information as to how update can affect the system and access its impact so to limit impact, as taught by Yunoki [0002] lines 3-16, [0003] lines 7-13 and [0031] lines 3-11.
As to claim 20 Parsons discloses a method of operating a home appliance, the method comprising; performing update or upgrade during the operation mode, in response to software update information being received from an external server or a mobile terminal (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8, [0019] lines 1-7, [0022] lines 3-9, [0024] lines 1-3, [0031] lines 6-8, [0041] lines 1-8 and [0049] lines1-4; which shows a plurality of devices as part of control system and thus configured to control operations and able to perform update based on received update information from a separate/external to the device server, where update to the code/software while device is in specific update mode/operation mode and can be performing other updates/operation while in the mode).
Parsons does not specifically disclose controlling an operating system-based operation mode, based on an operation input.
However, Maeng discloses controlling an operating system-based operation mode, based on an operation input (Maeng Col. 1 line 65- Col. 2 line 2 and lines10-41 and Col. 6 lines 35-37; which shows the specifics of the control system controlling power mode/operation mode associated with the operating system where the power mode/operation mode can be controlled by a plurality of factors including specific input operation that can control, disable and control timing of how long operation mode is disabled/terminated viewed as showing the specifics of a control device for controlling an operating system-based operation mode, based on an operation input)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Maeng showing the specifics of controlling operation based on an operating system into the controlling system of Parsons for the purpose of increasing adaptability of the control system with additional control options for use, as taught by Maeng Col. 6 lines 35-37.
Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose performing a firmware update, after the operation mode is terminated, in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal.
However, Yunoki discloses performing a firmware update, after the operation mode is terminated, in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal (Yunoki [0003] lines 7-13, [0022] lines 4-9, [0031] lines 3-11 and [0042] lines 6-14; which shows update schedule differences between firmware and software updates based on determine marginal time and impact level of the updates and associated operation and non-operational schedule of the device and how/when they are applied where higher impact level/firmware updates are seen as requiring longer non-operational time/more impactful, viewed as when operation mode is off/terminated, thus performing firmware update after operation mode is terminated/while in non-operation mode, where it is seen specifically disclosed above in the teachings of Parsons the specifics of performing the update in response to the update being received from the remote/external server and thus together disclose the specifics of performing a firmware update, after the operation mode is terminated, in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yunoki showing the use of marginal time in scheduling when software and firmware is updated into the updating of Parson as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing security and control over update by being able to determine additional information as to how update can affect the system and access its impact so to limit impact, as taught by Yunoki [0002] lines 3-16, [0003] lines 7-13 and [0031] lines 3-11.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons and Maeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humpleman et al. (Patent No. US 6,466,971 B1)
As to claim 8, Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose wherein the first circuit is configured to perform a remote procedure call communication with the second circuit.
However, Humpleman discloses wherein the first circuit is configured to perform a remote procedure call communication with the second circuit (Humpleman Col. 2 lines 55-60; which shows as part of controlling device/circuits being able to have a first device/circuit make/perform a remote procedure call with a second device/circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Humpleman showing the specifics of performing remote procedure calls between devices, into the control and communication between different control devices of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of increasing adaptability of the control system to allow additional method of control action calls to be made, as taught by Humpleman Col. 2 lines 55-60.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons, Maeng and Yunoki as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Harada (Pub. No. US 2011/0035739 A1)
As to claim 11, Parsons as modified by Maeng and Yunoki do not specifically disclose wherein in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal, the second processor is configured to transmit the firmware update information to the memory in the first circuit, and wherein the memory in the first circuit is configured to update the firmware, based on the firmware update information.
However, Harada discloses wherein in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal, the second processor is configured to transmit the firmware update information to the memory in the first circuit, and wherein the memory in the first circuit is configured to update the firmware, based on the firmware update information (Harada [0031] lines 1-8, [0053] lines 1-3, [0054] lines 1-7, [0055] lines 1-5, [0058] lines 1-16, [0064] lines 1-7, [0092] lines 1-8, [0093] lines 1-9; which shows the firmware update process with a plurality of control elements/circuits that include an element/sub CPU management unit that receives the firmware update from external apparatus/server is able to determine firmware update and in response to request from main CPU management/controller unit/first circuit transmit the firmware update information to the main/first circuit that is configured to perform the firmware update based on the received firmware update data where the firmware is loaded into memory associated with the main CPU management unit for use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Harada showing managing firmware updates in different operation modes, into the updating system of Parsons as modified by Maeng and Yunoki for the purpose of improving firmware update so can be applied without effecting operation state of the system, as taught by Harada [0008] lines 1-7 and [0009] lines 1-15.
As to claim 12, Parsons as modified by Maeng and Yunoki do not specifically disclose, however, Harada discloses wherein the memory in the first circuit is configured to not update the firmware during the operation mode, and update the firmware after the operation mode is terminated (Harada [0053] lines 1-3, [0054] lines 1-7, [0055] lines 1-5, [0058] lines 1-16, [0064] lines 1-7, [0092] lines 1-8, [0093] lines 1-9; which shows the second sub unit/controller initially handling firmware update while operating in energy saving mode/operation mode and only when device is returned to normal mode, viewed as after energy saving operation mode is stopped/terminated, does the first circuit/main controller update the firmware thus the associated memory in the first circuit not configured/able to update the firmware until the specific operation mode/energy saving mode is ended and returned to normal operation mode to perform the firmware update).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Harada showing managing firmware updates in different operation modes, into the updating system of Parsons as modified by Maeng and Yunoki for the purpose of improving firmware update so can be applied without effecting operation state of the system, as taught by Harada [0008] lines 1-7 and [0009] lines 1-15.
As to claim 13, Parsons as modified by Maeng and Yunoki do not specifically disclose, however, Harada discloses wherein in response to software update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal, the second processor is configured to transmit the software update information to the memory in the second circuit, and the memory in the second circuit is configured to perform a software update, based on the software update information (Harada [0020] lines 1-9, [0078] lines 1-3, [0079] lines 1-7, [0080] lines 1-18; which shows the second device/main CPU controller and associated processing unit can also receive from external apparatus/server the firmware/software update have it stored in memory associated with the second circuit/device and update the firmware stored with the firmware update data information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Harada showing managing firmware updates in different operation modes, into the updating system of Parsons as modified by Maeng and Yunoki for the purpose of improving firmware update so can be applied without effecting operation state of the system, as taught by Harada [0008] lines 1-7 and [0009] lines 1-15.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons and Maeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0167134 A1)
As to claim 14, Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose wherein in response to the home appliance being a first product, the second processor is configured to execute an operating system, execute a common framework in a part on the operating system, execute a first product framework in another part on the operating system, and execute a first product-related application on the common framework and the first product framework.
However, Shim discloses wherein in response to the home appliance being a first product, the second processor is configured to execute an operating system, execute a common framework in a part on the operating system, execute a first product framework in another part on the operating system, and execute a first product-related application on the common framework and the first product framework (Shim [0040] lines 1-6, [0053] lines 1-13, [0057] lines 1-2 and [0058] lines 1-3; which shows the operating system includes a first and second OS, viewed as different parts of the operating system, where each OS is able to provide a specific operation environment, viewed as execution of framework on the OS, where environment includes common/general environment and another environment that is specific for hardware which executes applicate function, viewed as type of product framework environment, where an application associated with the home appliance/first product/device is executed on the OS that include specific function and general/common application function, where the specifics of the second processor disclosed in the teachings of Parsons and Maeng above and thus together disclose wherein in response to the home appliance being a first product, the second processor is configured to execute an operating system, execute a common framework in a part on the operating system, execute a first product framework in another part on the operating system, and execute a first product-related application on the common framework and the first product framework).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shim showing dividing operating system into a plurality of parts but cooperative with each other in a control system for an appliance into a control system with plurality of controller elements of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of adaptability by having a plurality of different operating systems cooperating together to perform additional various task, as taught by Shim [0051] lines 1-7 and [0052] lines 1-11.
As to claim 15 Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose, however, Shim discloses wherein in response to the home appliance being a second product, the second processor is configured to execute the operating system, execute a common framework in a part on the operating system, execute a second product framework in another part on the operating system, and execute a second product-related application on the common framework and the second product framework (Shim [0040] lines 1-6, [0053] lines 1-13, [0057] lines 1-2 and [0058] lines 1-3; which shows the operating system includes a first and second OS, viewed as different parts of the operating system, where each OS is able to provide a specific operation environment, viewed as execution of framework on the OS, where environment includes common/general environment and another environment that is specific for hardware which executes applicate function, viewed as type of product framework environment, where an application associated with the home appliance/second product/device is executed on the OS that include specific function and general/common application function where the specifics of the second processor disclosed in the teachings of Parsons and Maeng above and thus together disclose wherein in response to the home appliance being a second product, the second processor is configured to execute the operating system, execute a common framework in a part on the operating system, execute a second product framework in another part on the operating system, and execute a second product-related application on the common framework and the second product framework).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shim showing dividing operating system into a plurality of parts but cooperative with each other in a control system for an appliance into a control system with plurality of controller elements of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of adaptability by having a plurality of different operating systems cooperating together to perform additional various task, as taught by Shim [0051] lines 1-7 and [0052] lines 1-11.
As to claim 16, Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose, however, Shim discloses wherein the second processor is configured to update the first product-related application, during operation of the first product (Shim [0057] lines 1-2 and [0058] lines 1-3, [0063] lines 1-7, [0066] lines 1-5, [0067] lines 1-11, [0069] lines 1-10 and [0102] lines 1-16; which shows the application running on the device/product can be updated/upgraded as part of it being managed where information regarding applicate/product state/monitoring operations are used for triggering management/upgrade actions thus viewed as being able to upgrade during product/appliance operation where the specifics of the plurality of devices include a second device with processor, used to control and update the system is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Parsons above and thus together show wherein the second processor is configured to update the first product-related application, during operation of the first product).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shim showing dividing operating system into a plurality of parts but cooperative with each other in a control system for an appliance into a control system with plurality of controller elements of Parson as modified by Maeng for the purpose of adaptability by having a plurality of different operating systems cooperating together to perform additional various task, as taught by Shim [0051] lines 1-7 and [0052] lines 1-11.
As to claim 17, Parsons discloses a home appliance comprising: a first circuit including a first processor for load control or safety control (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8 and [0020] lines 1-3; which shows a plurality of devices as part of the control system where individual devices can include their own/first processor as part of their device/circuit and where a device can be one for controlling the load/lighting load associated with the device ); and
a second circuit connected to the first circuit by wire or wirelessly, configured to control, and including a second processor configured to perform an update, based on update information received from an external server or a mobile terminal (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8, [0019] lines 1-7, [0022] lines 3-9, [0024] lines 1-3, [0031] lines 6-8, [0041] lines 1-8; which shows a plurality of devices as part of control system and thus configured to control operations where each device has its own processor, and thus including second processor with a plurality of control devices, as part of its device/circuit where code is used to enable the device to perform functions that can include the devices being able communicate over a bridge/wirelessly between each other and able to perform update based on received update information from a separate/external to the device server).
Parsons does not specifically disclose the specifics of a second circuit configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system.
However, Maeng discloses the specifics of a second circuit configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system (Maeng Col. 1 line 65- Col. 2 line 2 and Col. 6 lines 35-37; which shows the specifics of the control system controlling power mode/operation mode based on operating system configuration that in light of the teachings above of Parsons showing the specifics of a plurality of devices/circuits include a second circuit/device configure to control components/operations of devices can show the specifics of a second circuit configured to control an operation mode based on an operating system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Maeng showing the specifics of controlling operation based on an operating system into the controlling system of Parsons for the purpose of increasing adaptability of the control system with additional control options for use, as taught by Maeng Col. 6 lines 35-37.
Parsons as modified by Maeng do not specifically disclose the specifics of a second processor configured to perform application update during the operation mode.
However, Shim discloses the specifics of a second processor configured to perform application update during the operation mode (Shim [0057] lines 1-2 and [0058] lines 1-3, [0063] lines 1-7, [0066] lines 1-5, [0067] lines 1-11, [0069] lines 1-10, [0072] lines 1-7 and [0102] lines 1-16; which shows the application currently running/in use on the device/product can be updated/upgraded as part of it being managed, viewed as during the operation mode, with the DM client device/circuit and associated processing unit/processor, where information regarding applicate/product state/monitoring operations are used for triggering management/update actions thus viewed as being able to upgrade during product/appliance operation where the specifics of the plurality of devices include a second device with processor, used to control and update the system is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Parsons above and thus together show wherein the second processor is configured to update the first product-related application, during operation of the first product).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shim showing dividing operating system into a plurality of parts but cooperative with each other in a control system for an appliance into a control system with plurality of controller elements of Parsons as modified by Maeng for the purpose of adaptability by having a plurality of different operating systems cooperating together to perform additional various task, as taught by Shim [0051] lines 1-7 and [0052] lines 1-11.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons, Maeng and Shim as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Harada (Pub. No. US 2011/0035739 A1)
As to claim 18, Parsons as modified by Maeng and Shim do not specifically disclose wherein in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal, the second processor is configured to perform a firmware update, after the operation mode is terminated.
However, Harada discloses wherein in response to firmware update information being received from the server or the mobile terminal, the second processor is configured to perform a firmware update, after the operation mode is terminated (Harada [0053] lines 1-3, [0054] lines 1-7, [0055] lines 1-5, [0058] lines 1-16, [0064] lines 1-7, [0092] lines 1-8, [0093] lines 1-9; which shows the sub unit/controller initially handling the received firmware update while operating in energy saving mode/operation mode and only when device is returned to normal mode, viewed as after energy saving operation mode is stopped/terminated, does the main controller, viewed in this case as second circuit device with processor, update the firmware viewed as being configured not to perform the updating element of the received update until after it is out of energy saving/operation mode viewed as that operation mode being stopped/terminated with the specifics of the second processor seen specifically disclosed above in the teachings of Parsons).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Harada showing managing firmware updates in different operation modes, into the updating system of Parsons as modified by Maeng and Shim for the purpose of improving firmware update so can be applied without effecting operation state of the system, as taught by Harada [0008] lines 1-7 and [0009] lines 1-15.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons, Maeng and Shim as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Howitt et al. (Patent No. US 9,259,113 B2).
As to claim 19, Parsons discloses further comprising a third circuit including a third processor (Parsons [0012] lines 3-12, [0015] lines 1-8, [0019] lines 1-7 and [0022] lines 3-9 and Fig. 1; which shows the control system made up of a plurality of control devices/circuits that as seen in the figure 1 can include 3 device/circuits and associated processor and thus the specifics of a third circuit including a third processor in a control system )
Parsons as modified by Maeng and Shim do not specifically disclose the specifics of a third circuit including a third processor configured to control a light emitting diode or a display.
However, Howitt discloses a third circuit including a third processor configured to control a light emitting diode or a display (Howitt Col. 15 lines 43-45; which shows a control device/circuit that is used in controlling an LED/light emitting diode where it is seen in the teachings of Parsons above the specifics of system with a plurality of control devices/circuit that make it up thus including the specifics of a third circuit and together disclose the specifics of comprising a third circuit including a third processor configured to control a light emitting diode or a display ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Howitt showing the specifics of a control device for controlling a light emitting diode into the plurality of control devices for controlling elements of appliances of Parsons as modified by Maeng and Shim for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the control system through control of additional elements, as taught by Howitt Col. 15 lines 43-45.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights