DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 9/11/2024 for application number 18/882,536. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, claims, and certified copy of foreign priority application.
Claims 1 – 10 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
Examiner contends that the drawings filed 9/11/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner believes that the title of the invention is imprecise. A descriptive title indicative of the invention will help in proper indexing, classifying, searching, etc. See MPEP 606.01. However, the title of the invention should be limited to 500 characters. Examiner suggests “An Interface Module that Activates Protocol-Based Program Codes in a Version of Firmware Based on a Mode File”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochiai PGPUB 2020/0364341.
As per claim 1, Ochiai teach an interface module comprising:
a non-volatile storage area that stores one or more versions of firmware [0040-0041, 0047, and FIG. 1: (application module memory 142 stores the firmware to be executed by the processor, and may be non-volatile memory; or firmware memory 106 is also a non-volatile memory that stores the firmware) and 0065 and 0068: (application memory module 142 has a plurality of regions 310, where each region includes an active area to store the latest piece of firmware and an inactive area to store a previous firmware (one or more versions of firmware)) and 0063 and 0068-0069: (each area within the region also stores protocol information supported by the corresponding firmware)] and a mode file [0098: (download file (mode file) into the application module memory 142; the downloaded file has protocol information)]; and
a processor that executes a program code included in the firmware [0008: ((processor may execute the firmware stored in the firmware region 310 of the firmware memory)], wherein each version of the firmware includes:
a plurality of protocol-based program codes [0036-0037: (each piece of firmware is a program that is executed for realizing functions of the communication module 10 and application module 14; there are a plurality of pieces of firmware for realizing different functions (plurality of protocol-based program codes)); 0065: (one firmware region may store pieces of firmware) and 0085: (processor executes a specific function of the firmware)]; and
an activation unit that activates at least one of the plurality of protocol-based program codes based on description of the mode file [0036-0037, 0048, 0060, and 0098: (functional unit 144 (activation unit) is to activate functions such as acquiring sensor information or perform actuation based on execution of the piece of firmware according to protocol information; protocol information was provided on the download file)].
As per claim 5, Ochiai teach the interface module according to claim 1, further comprising a file writing unit that writes the mode file into the non-volatile storage area at the time of hardware initial setting [0106-0108: (write firmware of download file)].
As per claim 6, Ochiai teaches the interface module according to claim 1, wherein when the mode file does not exist, the activation unit activates the protocol-based program code determined in advance [FIG. 4 step s404 and s408, 0076, and 0097: (start-up common function of firmware)].
Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale. Ochiai further teaches the information communication device [FIG. 1 apparatus 6] comprising: a first interface module [FIG. 1 communication module 10]; a storage controller that receives at least one of a read command and a write command via the first interface module [FIG. 1 application module 14 and 0088: (processor 100 of communication module transmits a read out request to application module 14)].
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai PGPUB 2020/0364341, and further in view of Bansal et al. (hereinafter as Bansal) PGPUB 2025/0184336.
As per claim 2, Ochiai teach the interface module according to claim 1.
Ochiai does not explicitly teach, further comprising: a file rewriting unit that, when a designated mode indicating a protocol of a program code to be executed at the time of activation is designated, rewrites the mode file to activate the protocol-based program code that is the indicated protocol in a case where the mode file indicates that the protocol-based program code different from the designated mode is activated. Ochiai does not explicitly teach rewriting or updating the file to implement a new protocol.
Bansal teaches using a configuration file that identifies target protocols. Bansal is thus similar to Ochiai because they teach using a file to store protocol information to be used. Bansal further teaches a file rewriting unit that, when a designated mode indicating a protocol of a program code to be executed at the time of activation is designated, rewrites the mode file to activate the protocol-based program code that is the indicated protocol in a case where the mode file indicates that the protocol-based program code different from the designated mode is activated [0005: (receiving another configuration file from CPU during operation phrase causes existing configuration file to be flushed and replaced with another configuration file; component performing the flush is a file rewriting unit)]. Bansal teaches changing a file to activate a new protocol.
The combination of Ochiai with Bansal leads to CPU providing a new download file with a different protocol to implement for a particular firmware.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bansal’s teachings of providing a configuration file specifying a protocol to be implemented and flushing such configuration file to perform an update an interface component in Ochiai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated allow a file to be flushed to implement a different protocol in Ochiai because it is a convenient and direct way of controlling which protocol gets implemented for a particular firmware.
As per claim 3, Ochiai and Bansal teach the interface module according to claim 2, wherein when the mode file is rewritten, the activation unit terminates the protocol-based program code which is activated, and activates the protocol-based program code based on description of the mode file which is rewritten [Bansal 0005: (old file is flushed to implement new configuration file, and thus old protocol stops and new protocol is used)].
As per claim 8, Ochiai teach the information communication device according to claim 7, further comprising: a storage device that stores a protocol setting table indicating a designated mode that is a communication protocol to be used by the first interface module [FIG. 1 application module memory 142 and FIG. 3].
The remaining limitations are similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale. Bansal further teaches a channel board setting unit [CPU 104].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
Du et al. (USPAT 11,811,599) teaches starting a protocol service based on a selected configuration file.
Samuel (PGPUB 2022/0342994) teaches BIOS looping through drivers based on contents of a dependency file.
Garg (PGPUB 2013/0332141) teaches protocol engine selection based on a configuration file.
Noguchi (PGPUB 2024/0330467) teaches multiple versions of firmware being stored.
Maleport (PGPUB 2013/0227519) teaches defining protocols in a file that may be parsed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 5712703779. 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.
/DANNY CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175