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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a control device" in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 12 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.
The term “substantially simultaneous” in claims 12 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially simultaneous” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what substantially simultaneous means when updating elements.
Claims 13-19 and 21-22 depend on claims that are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the
claims suffer the same deficiency as the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 12-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 12, and 20-21 recite(s):
arranging the low-voltage elements in groups;
sequentially updating the groups of low-voltage elements; and
substantially simultaneously updating the low-voltage elements in a group.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 12 is a method
Yes. Claim 20 is a machine
Yes. Claim 21 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "arranging", as drafted in #1 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a method" or "a control device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "updating" limitation in #2-3 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "updating" in the context of this claim encompasses merely executing script in order to download and install new versions of software. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a control device,
a multiplicity of low-voltage elements
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 13 recite(s):
using a control device for controlling at least parts of the updating sequence to communicate with the low-voltage elements:
using the low-voltage elements of a first group to transmit a status report to the control device, in an event that updating has been successfully executed; and
commencing updating of a second group of low-voltage elements upon a status report being transmitted to the control device by all of the low-voltage elements in the first group, signaling a successful execution of updating.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 13 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "commencing updating" limitation in #6 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "updating" in the context of this claim encompasses merely running a script to download and install new code. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
The "communicate" and "transmit" limitations in #4-5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "communicate" or "transmit" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a control device,
low-voltage elements
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #4-5 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 14 recite(s):
which further comprises using low-voltage elements in the first group to also transmit a status report to the control device, upon not having been possible to successfully execute updating.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 14 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations in #7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "transmit" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a control device,
low-voltage elements
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #7 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 15 recite(s):
using the low-voltage elements, in an event of an interruption of an update, to generate an error report, for identifying the event, at a point of interruption of the update; and
then transmitting the error report, or information inferred from the error report, together with a status report on the unsuccessful update, to the control device.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 15 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "generate", as drafted in #8 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "low-voltage elements", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "transmit" limitations in #9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "transmitting" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #9 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 16 and 22 recite(s):
initiating updating by using an application of a device; and
transmitting a message to the control device for the initiation of updating by the application.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 16 is a method
Yes. Claim 22 is a machine
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "initiate" limitation in #10 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "initiate updating" in the context of this claim encompasses merely executing code. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f).
The "transmitting" limitations in #11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "transmitting" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element:
a device
The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #11 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 17 recite(s):
generating a group status report from the status reports of low-voltage elements of a group; and
using the control device to communicate the group status report to the application.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 17 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation of "generating", as drafted in #12 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting low-voltage elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The "communicate" limitations in #13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "communicate" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #13 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Claim(s) 18 recite(s):
carrying out the arrangement of low-voltage elements in groups either according to a type of low-voltage element, or according to an equivalence of software of the low-voltage elements
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 18 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The limitation, as drafted in #14 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting low-voltage elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person.
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Claim(s) 19 recite(s):
which further comprises carrying out communication at least by a wireless protocol.
Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 19 is a method
Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations in #15 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "communication" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step.
Additionally, with regards to #15 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
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) 12-14, 16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230367584 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Tai) and US 20130179873 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Crespi).
Regarding claim 12, Tai teaches:
A method for updating the software of a multiplicity of elements being able to communicate, the method comprising:
arranging the low-voltage elements in groups (Para. [15], Tai shows "election of the firmware driven devices to be updated is performed automatically. In some embodiments, the plurality of firmware driven devices includes at least one group of (e.g., substantially) identical devices which utilize (e.g., substantially) identical firmware, wherein the validated firmware update images include a common firmware image for the group. In some embodiments, the method further comprises collectively launching updating of the group with the common firmware image. In some embodiments, the firmware update manager initiates a respective handshake with specific devices in the group, wherein the firmware update manager invokes the respective update engine in the specific devices in the group, and wherein the firmware update manager transfers the common firmware image separately to the specific devices in the group." Examiner notes the above citation shows grouping devices together.);
sequentially updating the groups of low-voltage elements (Para. [9], Tai shows " the update manager initiating at least one handshake with at least one of the devices, (2) the update manager invoking an update engine in at least one of the devices, and/or (3) the update manager transferring at least one firmware update to at least one of the devices. In some embodiments, the update manager is initiating a plurality of handshakes with the devices concurrently or sequentially. In some embodiments, the update manager invokes an update engine in the devices concurrently or sequentially. In some embodiments, the update manager transfers firmware updates to the devices concurrently or sequentially. In some embodiments, the update manager transfers respective firmware updates to the devices concurrently or sequentially. In some embodiments, the bidirectional communication further includes at least one confirmation message forwarded from the at least one of the devices to the update manager. In some embodiments, a communication message of the at least one confirmation message includes a version information after successful install of the firmware update. In some embodiments, updating the device with the firmware update is selective. In some embodiments, the different devices are a first set of different devices, wherein the plurality of device ensembles comprises a second set of different devices, wherein different device ensembles of the plurality of device ensembles include the second set of the different devices that are of (e.g., substantially) the same type, and wherein at least two devices of the second set of different devices each receives the firmware update separately. In some embodiments, (e.g., each of) the at least two device of the second set of different devices receives the firmware update (i) sequentially with each other or (ii) concurrently with each other. In some embodiments, the plurality of device ensembles comprises a first device ensemble including a first device, and a second device ensemble including a second device that is of the same type of the first device, and wherein the first device and the second device receive the firmware update separately. In some embodiments, the first device and the second device each receives the firmware update (i) sequentially with each other or (ii) concurrently with each other." Para. [15], Tai shows "election of the firmware driven devices to be updated is performed automatically. In some embodiments, the plurality of firmware driven devices includes at least one group of (e.g., substantially) identical devices which utilize (e.g., substantially) identical firmware, wherein the validated firmware update images include a common firmware image for the group. In some embodiments, the method further comprises collectively launching updating of the group with the common firmware image. In some embodiments, the firmware update manager initiates a respective handshake with specific devices in the group, wherein the firmware update manager invokes the respective update engine in the specific devices in the group, and wherein the firmware update manager transfers the common firmware image separately to the specific devices in the group." Examiner notes the above citation shows grouping devices together and sequentially updating sets of devices); and
substantially simultaneously updating the low-voltage elements in a group (Para. [68-69], Tai shows "The user may enter their selection(s) (I) one-by-one for individual components (e.g., individually), (II) according to groups of components. The groups may be of components of the same type, of the same version, of the same housing (e.g., in the same ensemble), of the same facility section (e.g., the same floor or of the same building), and/or having a common group software or firmware version. At least two of a plurality of components may be update sequentially or concurrently. Concurrent update can include an update process of at least two components having at least one portion of time overlap. The at least two components can be updated with the same update, or with different updates. Sequential updates can occur when the update process of at least two components have no time overlap. In a sequential update, a second update can directly follow a first update (e.g., without any (e.g., measurable)) time gap, or indirectly follow a first update (e.g., having a measurable time gap between the first and the second update). In some embodiments, the update is programmed. Programming of (i) backend application (e.g., 341), (ii) controller and/or dashboard (e.g., 330), and/or (iii) update manager (e.g., 320), may automatically launch the updating process for individual component or component groups, e.g., without further human intervention. The Update manager (e.g., 320) may be comprised of a server, such as an loTium server or iNode (available from loTium, Inc., Santa Clara, California), which synchronizes with a cloud controller (e.g., backend app 341) and/or controller (e.g., 330) that is a disposed in the facility. The upgrade manager may arbitrate message(s) on the local network links (e.g., 315), e.g., according to an updating protocol." Examiner notes the above citation shows concurrently updating devices/components. Examiner additionally notes the elements/devices/components are grouped together based on some attributes and perform software update on the groups sequentially or simultaneously depending the attributes relationship (type, version, housing or ensemble)).
Tai does not explicitly disclose:
updating the software of a multiplicity of low-voltage elements (Examiner notes Tai teaches updating IoT devices which are typically operated at low-voltage)
However, in the analogous art of low or medium voltage electric power distribution, Crespi teaches:
updating the software of a multiplicity of low-voltage elements ([Abstract], Crespi shows "A low or medium voltage electric power distribution network comprising: a plurality of P&C devices (IED1, IEDN), and a computerized station (11) which can communicate with said P&C devices through a communication network (12). Said computer station comprises first computerised means (111) for executing, according to a batch processing mode, downloading/uploading sessions of configuration/software upgrading data packages (F1, FN) to/from said P&C devices, said computerised means executing a plurality of processing threads during a downloading/uploading session of said configuration/software upgrading data packages, each of said processing threads being executed for performing the task of downloading/loading one or more configuration/software upgrading data packages to a selected P&C device in parallel and independent manner with respect to the other P&C devices.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Crespi into the teachings of Tai to implement “updating the software of a multiplicity of low-voltage elements”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the time and work it takes to update P&C devices (Crespi, Para. [11-12]).
Regarding claim 13, Tai as modified in claim 12 teaches:
which further comprises: using a control device for controlling at least parts of the updating sequence to communicate with the low-voltage elements (Para. [9], Tai shows "In some embodiments, the method further comprises storing the firmware updates as images in an update manager, and wherein the device, the device ensemble, and/or the different devices, have bidirectional communication over the network with the update manager. In some embodiments, the firmware updates have been validated for the devices. In some embodiments, the update manager is included in a controller operatively coupled to the network, which controller is disposed in a facility in which the plurality of device ensembles is located. In some embodiments, the update manager is included in a controller disposed externally relative to the facility, and is coupled to the network by a cloud connection. In some embodiments, the method further comprises the update manager offering available one or more firmware updates to a user via a user interface. In some embodiments, the method further comprises selecting by a user a timing for distributing and/or installing the one or more firmware updates... the update manager transferring at least one firmware update to at least one of the devices" Examiner notes the above citation shows using an update manager (control device) to send firmware or initiate updates in devices/components in the network.):
using the low-voltage elements of a first group to transmit a status report to the control device, in an event that updating has been successfully executed (Para. [76], Tai shows " During update, the targeted component may send regular progress messages (e.g., once per two minutes, or more frequently) to the update manager, e.g., so that faults during installation can be detected. Upon successful completion of an installation, the targeted component may send a confirmation message to the update manager. The confirmation can include details on the new version status of the component. The message can be relayed to the database and/or the dashboard."); and
commencing updating of a second group of low-voltage elements upon a status report being transmitted to the control device by all of the low-voltage elements in the first group, signaling a successful execution of updating (Para. [9], Tai shows " In some embodiments, the update manager transfers firmware updates to the devices concurrently or sequentially. In some embodiments, the update manager transfers respective firmware updates to the devices concurrently or sequentially. In some embodiments, the bidirectional communication further includes at least one confirmation message forwarded from the at least one of the devices to the update manager. In some embodiments, a communication message of the at least one confirmation message includes a version information after successful install of the firmware update. In some embodiments, updating the device with the firmware update is selective. In some embodiments, the different devices are a first set of different devices, wherein the plurality of device ensembles comprises a second set of different devices, wherein different device ensembles of the plurality of device ensembles include the second set of the different devices that are of (e.g., substantially) the same type, and wherein at least two devices of the second set of different devices each receives the firmware update separately. In some embodiments, (e.g., each of) the at least two device of the second set of different devices receives the firmware update (i) sequentially with each other or (ii) concurrently with each other. In some embodiments, the plurality of device ensembles comprises a first device ensemble including a first device, and a second device ensemble including a second device that is of the same type of the first device, and wherein the first device and the second device receive the firmware update separately. In some embodiments, the first device and the second device each receives the firmware update (i) sequentially with each other or (ii) concurrently with each other." Examiner notes the above citation shows sequentially updating sets of devices/components and upon the completion of any firmware update a status message is received regarding the completed update and the sequential update continues.).
Regarding claim 14, Tai as modified in claim 13 teaches:
which further comprises using low-voltage elements in the first group to also transmit a status report to the control device, upon not having been possible to successfully execute updating (Fig. 5; Para. [76], Tai shows "During update, the targeted component may send regular progress messages (e.g., once per two minutes, or more frequently) to the update manager, e.g., so that faults during installation can be detected." Para. [79], Tai shows "Once the readiness has been acknowledged, a Transfer operation 530 is performed in which FW updater 501 commands device 502 to execute a chunk script in which chunks of the update image file are sent in succession. With each chunk successfully stored in flash memory or not within device 502, a corresponding ACK (success) or NACK (failure) message may be sent to FW updater 501." Examiner notes the above citation shows sending messages regarding update progress and reveal issues in progress if the messages. Figure 5 additionally shows sending messages regarding failure or success to receive commands or run scripts during updates.).
Regarding claim 16, Tai as modified in claim 13 teaches:
which further comprises: initiating updating by using an application of a device (Para. [66], Tai shows "In some embodiments, the updatable components (e.g., each) include an update engine. The update engine may be a software and/or firmware component which is responsive to an update protocol used by the update manager. The protocol may enable the update manager to act as an intermediary between an updatable component and a source of (e.g., validated) update. The update manager may make decision(s) regarding when to initiate and/or proceed with a particular update. In some embodiments, the update manager is located within an on-premises network. In some embodiments, the update manager is located locally in the facility housing the component(s). In some embodiments, the update manager is located remotely from the facility housing the component(s). For example, the update manager may be in a cloud server and/or cloud network (e.g., under control of a service provider, network provider, and/or manufacturer). The manufacturer may be of the network, or of components thereof. A backend application (e.g., on the remote and/or cloud network) may coordinate authentication of resources making access from a local (e.g., facility such as a building) network and may compile a database which lists (i) all the updatable components (e.g., devices) in the local network, (ii) the current level or version of firmware or software running on the components (e.g., devices), and/or (iii) images of validated updates and the components (e.g., devices) to which they pertain. The backend application may recognize (1) the components (e.g., devices) and corresponding software and/or firmware versions executing on the components, and (2) target the components (e.g., devices) for updating, e.g., by distributing relevant ones of the firmware and/or software updates to replace the versions executing on the components, e.g., via the update manager. The database may be partially or completely contained in the local network (e.g., alongside the update manager), or operatively coupled thereto. For example, the database may be accessed by utilizing the local network. Access may be by the update manager and/or by the component. Instead of or in addition to the backend application, a controller and/or dashboard may be operatively coupled to the local network, e.g., for enabling an administrative user (ii) to monitor any available update(s) and/or (ii) to select a time to perform the distribution and installation of updates to any particular updatable device. The administrative user may be animate (e.g., human) or inanimate (e.g., automated such as by utilizing a program, e.g., embedded in software or firmware). The inanimate user may comprise a machine (e.g., a robot)." Examiner notes the above citation shows using an application or software update engine to initiate an update in devices in a network remotely.); and
transmitting a message to the control device for the initiation of updating by the application (Fig. 3 (341, 320, 330); Para. [66], Tai shows "In some embodiments, the updatable components (e.g., each) include an update engine. The update engine may be a software and/or firmware component which is responsive to an update protocol used by the update manager. The protocol may enable the update manager to act as an intermediary between an updatable component and a source of (e.g., validated) update. The update manager may make decision(s) regarding when to initiate and/or proceed with a particular update. In some embodiments, the update manager is located within an on-premises network. In some embodiments, the update manager is located locally in the facility housing the component(s). In some embodiments, the update manager is located remotely from the facility housing the component(s). For example, the update manager may be in a cloud server and/or cloud network (e.g., under control of a service provider, network provider, and/or manufacturer). The manufacturer may be of the network, or of components thereof. A backend application (e.g., on the remote and/or cloud network) may coordinate authentication of resources making access from a local (e.g., facility such as a building) network and may compile a database which lists (i) all the updatable components (e.g., devices) in the local network, (ii) the current level or version of firmware or software running on the components (e.g., devices), and/or (iii) images of validated updates and the components (e.g., devices) to which they pertain. The backend application may recognize (1) the components (e.g., devices) and corresponding software and/or firmware versions executing on the components, and (2) target the components (e.g., devices) for updating, e.g., by distributing relevant ones of the firmware and/or software updates to replace the versions executing on the components, e.g., via the update manager. The database may be partially or completely contained in the local network (e.g., alongside the update manager), or operatively coupled thereto. For example, the database may be accessed by utilizing the local network. Access may be by the update manager and/or by the component. Instead of or in addition to the backend application, a controller and/or dashboard may be operatively coupled to the local network, e.g., for enabling an administrative user (ii) to monitor any available update(s) and/or (ii) to select a time to perform the distribution and installation of updates to any particular updatable device. The administrative user may be animate (e.g., human) or inanimate (e.g., automated such as by utilizing a program, e.g., embedded in software or firmware). The inanimate user may comprise a machine (e.g., a robot)." Examiner notes the above citation shows using an application or software update engine to initiate an update in devices in a network remotely. The application can be used to transmit a message to initiate updates).
Regarding claim 18, Tai as modified in claim 12 teaches:
which further comprises carrying out the arrangement of low-voltage elements in groups either according to a type of low-voltage element, or according to an equivalence of software of the low-voltage elements (Para. [15], Tai shows "In some embodiments, the plurality of firmware driven devices includes at least one group of (e.g., substantially) identical devices which utilize (e.g., substantially) identical firmware, wherein the validated firmware update images include a common firmware image for the group." Examiner notes the above citation shows grouping devices by similarity in firmware (software)).
Regarding claim 19, Tai as modified in claim 12 teaches:
which further comprises carrying out communication at least by a wireless protocol (Para. [47], Tai shows "Certain disclosed embodiments provide a network infrastructure in the enclosure (e.g., a facility such as a building). The network infrastructure is available for various purposes such as for providing communication and/or power services. The communication services may comprise high bandwidth (e.g., wireless and/or wired) communications services. The communication services can be to occupants of a facility and/or users outside the facility (e.g., building). The network infrastructure may work in concert with, or as a partial replacement of, the infrastructure of one or more cellular carriers. The network infrastructure can be provided in a facility that includes electrically switchable windows. Examples of components of the network infrastructure include a high speed backhaul. The network infrastructure may include at least one cable, switch, physical antenna, transceivers, sensor, transmitter, receiver, radio, processor and/or controller (that may comprise a processor). The network infrastructure may be operatively coupled to, and/or include, a wireless network. The network infrastructure may comprise wiring. One or more sensors can be deployed (e.g., installed) in an environment as part of installing the network and/or after installing the network." Examiner notes the above citation shows using wireless communication services to communicate in a network.).
With regards to claim 20, it is a machine claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 12 above. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
With regards to claim 21, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 12 above. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
With regards to claim 22, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 16 above. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230367584 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Tai) and US 20130179873 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Crespi) in further view of US 20220066770 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Jeong).
Regarding claim 15, Tai as modified teaches claim 14 as cited above, but does not disclose:
which further comprises: using the low-voltage elements, in an event of an interruption of an update, to generate an error report, for identifying the event, at a point of interruption of the update; and
then transmitting the error report, or information inferred from the error report, together with a status report on the unsuccessful update, to the control device.
However, in the analogous art of managing updates for vehicles, Jeong teaches:
which further comprises: using the low-voltage elements, in an event of an interruption of an update, to generate an error report, for identifying the event, at a point of interruption of the update; and (Para. [43], Jeong shows "When it is determined by the ECU update management device 200 that the update is impossible, the ECU update control device 100 may display a breakdown code through a display and provide guidance information on a breakdown to a user." Examiner notes the above citation displaying error code and remediation for an issue while updating. This can be considered an error report)
then transmitting the error report, or information inferred from the error report, together with a status report on the unsuccessful update, to the control device (Para. [88], Jeong shows "the update table and a notification indicating that the version up of the vehicle is impossible may be transmitted to the ECU update control device 100 (305 and 309). Then, the ECU update control device 100 may display the breakdown code and provide the guidance information on the breakdown to the user.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jeong into the teachings of Tai as modified to implement “which further comprises: using the low-voltage elements, in an event of an interruption of an update, to generate an error report, for identifying the event, at a point of interruption of the update; and then transmitting the error report, or information inferred from the error report, together with a status report on the unsuccessful update, to the control device.”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to inform and guide users how to resolve the error with updating (Jeong, Para. 88).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230367584 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Tai) and US 20130179873 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Crespi) in further view of US 20220066770 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Jeong).
Regarding claim 17, Tai as modified teaches claim 16 as cited above, but does not disclose:
generating a group status report from the status reports of low-voltage elements of a group;
using the control device to communicate the group status report to the application .
However, in the analogous art of software update system for hardware devices, Iyer teaches:
generating a group status report from the status reports of low-voltage elements of a group (Para. [81], Iyer shows "FIG. 5 illustrates an example status window 500 that may be generated by the systems manager 304 to display a status of a software update operation performed on a computing environment according to one embodiment of the present disclosure." Para. [84], Iyer shows "Additionally, the status window 500 may display details about how specific update instructions are progressing for each group of hardware components. For example, the results window portion 508 displays specific instructions that are applied to the controller device 304 named ‘100.69.124.139.’ Thus, the user of the systems manager 304 may continually monitor how each update instructions is performed, and provide remediating actions if any of those update instructions fails or gets “stuck.”");
using the control device to communicate the group status report to the application (Para. [81], Iyer shows "FIG. 5 illustrates an example status window 500 that may be generated by the systems manager 304 to display a status of a software update operation performed on a computing environment according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. In one embodiment, the status window 500 may be displayed as a result of performing step 420 by the method 400 of FIG. 4. In another embodiment, the status window 500 may be displayed on user interface 308 of the systems manager appliance 204 of FIG. 3." Para. [84], Iyer shows "Additionally, the status window 500 may display details about how specific update instructions are progressing for each group of hardware components. For example, the results window portion 508 displays specific instructions that are applied to the controller device 304 named ‘100.69.124.139.’ Thus, the user of the systems manager 304 may continually monitor how each update instructions is performed, and provide remediating actions if any of those update instructions fails or gets “stuck.” Examiner notes the above citation shows controller devices sending info to systems manager which further sends a group status report to an application to display to users).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Iyer into the teachings of Tai as modified to implement “generating a group status report from the status reports of low-voltage elements of a group; using the control device to communicate the group status report to the application.”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to inform the user if progress of an update has stalled so a user may remediate (Iyer, Para. [84]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230289174 A1 – This prior art teaches having a controller and updating many components with it
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEERICK A MALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8110. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5.
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.
/Z.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights