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 in response to communications filed on 9/12/2024.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-2, 5-12, 15-22, 25-31, and 34-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (US 2012/0128045 A1, hereinafter Ling) in view of Lazar (US 9146730 B2), and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2005/0034115 A1, hereinafter Carter).
Regarding claim 1, Ling discloses a method, comprising:
sending, by a first computing device, a signal to a second computing device of a plurality of second computing devices (¶[0030], "customer premise equipment (CPE) must receive several channels distributed throughout the cable spectrum" (i.e., signals, from a second device; ¶[0036], "customer premises equipment (also referred to generally herein as CPE) may include a cable or satellite data modem, gateway or other device residing in the customer premises" - see also ¶[0035] and Fig. 1); ¶[0057], a signal may be a first signal processed prior to a change in a number of bonded channels; ¶[0063], a first mode may be a DOCSIS 3.0 mode - DOCSIS 3.0 requires transmission of signals according to a device type, see DOCSIS 3.0 specification, pages 45-46, section 5.2.5.1, "CMTS has located the CM in the plant topology (i.e., is aware of what downstream channels and upstream channels physically reach the CM [...] the CMTS [...] reserves or activates MAC layer resources based on the service provisioning information that it received)"),
wherein the second computing device processes a first portion of the signal based on a software module of the second computing device (¶[0046], "analog to digital data converter ADC1/2 […] converts the signal via ADC1 and ADC2"; Fig. 4, the output of ADC 1 or 2 is provided to a Digital Baseband Processor DBB1; Fig. 4, ¶[0039], DBB1 includes a MAC processor (MAC1) operating, as shown, DOCSIS 3.0, (where DOCSIS 3.0 is defined by software (see DOCSIS 3.0 specification, page 3, section 1.2.4, "DOCSIS 3.0 is backward-compatible with equipment built to the previous specifications" (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0) which is only possible if DOCSIS is defined by software, and, additionally, page 44, section 5.2.3, removing software requirements present in DOCSIS 2.0 (IGMP snooping) from DOCSIS 3.0, page 46, "download a configuration file containing its service provisioning information", and page 457, "software has been upgraded to meet a new version of the specification"); ¶[0030], DOCSIS defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect));
determining an update for the software module of the second computing device (¶[0063], "For example, in one implementation a single threshold, below which the modem signals to the head end that it wishes to change transmission modes, such as switching from DOCSIS 3 (which bonds 4 channels) to DOCSIS 2 (which only occupies a single channel)"); and
wherein the update causes the software module to process a second portion of the signal (¶[0057], data is processed after update (second digital stream is data generated after bandwidth adjustment request); ¶[0063], after adjustment, signals are processed according to the second version; Fig. 4, the signal is split into two portions (after LNA1) and each portion is converted to a digital stream at ADC1 and ADC2, each digital stream being passed to the DBB1 for processing, where each may further include portions, a first portion prior to updating to the second version, and a second portion after updating to the second version (see ¶[0057]); furthermore, while ¶[0050]-[0051] discuss possibly changing filter frequencies, that is an optional step (e.g. "may", "alternatively", etc., filter changes unrelated to change in bonded channel (DOCSIS) processing) but also, adjusting BW may still encompass a prior frequency).
Ling does not disclose that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device; and sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
Lazar discloses sending the update for the software module to the second computing device (col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a network device connected to a cable modem termination system that provides data signals to the network device (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the modem may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - see also col. 3, lines 22-23; col. 8, lines 19-24, network device may be a gateway; col. 8, lines 8-15, an update may comprise new firmware (computer executable instructions); col. 5, lines 45-48, discloses that the update is to reconfigure operation of a DOCSIS firmware ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ling in view of Lazar for sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow for the automation of software updates in devices (such as gateways) that do not typically include memories large enough to maintain multiple versions of software locally (Lazar, col. 1, line 63 to col. 2, line 9).
The combined system of Ling and Lazar does not disclose that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
Carter discloses determining an update based on a type of a computing device (¶[0003], "cable modems used in a broadband cable modem termination system ("CMTS") are capable of transmitting and receiving Internet data using the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification ("DOCSIS") protocol"; ¶[0004], "Typically, each communication device is controlled with software"; ¶[0005], "The particular software file and version number is often referred to as the software `load`, or simply `load`"; ¶[0007], "equipment makers are constantly improving and upgrading their products. Such change to a product often includes the software load installed into a given device"; ¶[0008], "To provide updates to devices, such as, for example, cable modems, a service provider typically maintains a configuration file corresponding to a manufacturers device [...] an identifier is sent upstream to a central location that is operated by the service provider. Typically, the identifier is the media access control ("MAC") identification number"; ¶[0009], "the modem transmits the MAC address to a first server, typically a DHCP server, of the service provider; the MAC address is used to determine the appropriate configuration file that should be loaded into the modem. The vendor identifier contained in received MAC address is compared to values in a field of a database loaded on the DHCP server. When a match is found, associated information, including the configuration filename corresponding to the received MAC address is sent to the device having that MAC address" ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Ling and Lazar in view of Carter so that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent a computing device from downloading a software version that is incompatible with the computing device.
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a first version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0057], and [0063], DOCSIS is updated from a first version, which may be DOCSIS 3.0, to a second version; ¶[0030], DOCSIS 3.0 defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect) (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect))).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update comprises machine-executable instructions for implementing physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2, inherently including software, see DOCSIS 2.0 specification, page 78)).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the updated software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2)).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, further comprising sending the update for the software module via the signal (Lazar, col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a gateway device connected to a cable gateway termination system that provides data signals to the gateway (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the gateway may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - applied to Ling, when the system of Ling is on a power saving mode (i.e. using a single channel), data and an update would be received from the same channel).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a spectrum range upon which the second computing device operates (Ling, ¶[0071]-[0072], to implement power saving techniques, the number of channels received by a front end of the gateway may be reduced (going from wideband to narrowband, see ¶[0069]) - one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to achieve high performance, the opposite would be done: the number of channels would be increased and if RF2 was receiving only frf11, after the update it would receive frf11 and frf12, which are different signals - ¶[0056] enables the method of going from narrowband to wideband).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a radio frequency bonding procedure of the software module (Ling, ¶[0032], modifying the number of bonded channels; ¶[0063], the modification to the bonded channels is done by updating the DOCSIS version).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a procedure for generating, based on a first digital stream, a plurality of packets (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates packets (right hand of Fig. 4) from a bit stream (analog data signal received and processed at RF1 and passed as a digital signal to DBB1, which is configured to further process the data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074])) and
a procedure for generating, based on the plurality of packets, a second digital stream (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates a bit stream (left hand of Fig. 4) from a plurality of packets (left hand of Fig. 4) (packets received and processed at DBB1, which is configured to further process data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074], and passed as an analog signal to TX1)).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15-20, Ling discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions (Fig. 1, a user device (CPE 130); ¶[0006], user device may be a gateway (a gateway is a computing device, and computing devices are known in the art to include at least one processor, and at least one memory for storing instructions to be executed by the processor); see also ¶[0040], processors and instructions for the processors stored in memory) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
The remaining limitations of claims 11-12 and 15-20 are similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 5-10. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 15-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-10, above.
Regarding claims 21-22 and 25-30, Ling discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Fig. 1, a user device (CPE 130); ¶[0006], user device may be a gateway (a gateway is a computing device, and computing devices are known in the art to include at least one processor, and at least one memory for storing instructions to be executed by the processor); see also ¶[0040], processors and instructions for the processors stored in memory):
The remaining limitations of claims 21-22 and 25-30 are similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 5-10. Therefore, claims 21-22 and 25-30 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-10, above.
Regarding claim 31, Ling discloses a system comprising:
a first computing device configured to: send a signal to a second computing device of a plurality of second computing devices (¶[0030]-[0031], "several end users" using a CPE (e.g. gateway, see ¶[0036]) to receive signals from a content provider (see Fig. 1, 110 and ¶[0035]); Fig. 4, ¶[0046], a CPE may include a radio front end (RF1, or RF2, see Fig. 5) including a splitter (e.g. after amplifier LNA1) and "converts BW1 to baseband" (i.e. a range of frequencies close to or around a single frequency, at filters F1 or F2) and then converts the baseband signal into a digital signal (at ADC1 or ADC2). Since F1 and F2 are different, different portions of the signal are converted at ADC1 or ADC2, ADC1 or ADC2 being the signal converters; additionally, ¶[0036], the CPE may be one of multiple devices, or alternatively, Fig. 5, ¶[0047], "multiple RF front ends" such as RF1, RF2),
determine an update for a software module of the second computing device (¶[0063], "For example, in one implementation a single threshold, below which the modem signals to the head end that it wishes to change transmission modes, such as switching from DOCSIS 3 (which bonds 4 channels) to DOCSIS 2 (which only occupies a single channel)"), and
the second computing device configured to: receive the signal (¶[0030]-[0031], a CPE (e.g. gateway, see ¶[0036]) configured to receive signals),
process, based on the software module of the second computing device, a first portion of the signal (¶[0046], "analog to digital data converter ADC1/2 […] converts the signal via ADC1 and ADC2"; Fig. 4, the output of ADC 1 or 2 is provided to a Digital Baseband Processor DBB1; Fig. 4, ¶[0039], DBB1 includes a MAC processor (MAC1) operating, as shown, DOCSIS 3.0, (where DOCSIS 3.0 is defined by software (see DOCSIS 3.0 specification, page 3, section 1.2.4, "DOCSIS 3.0 is backward-compatible with equipment built to the previous specifications" (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0) which is only possible if DOCSIS is defined by software, and, additionally, page 44, section 5.2.3, removing software requirements present in DOCSIS 2.0 (IGMP snooping) from DOCSIS 3.0, page 46, "download a configuration file containing its service provisioning information", and page 457, "software has been upgraded to meet a new version of the specification"); ¶[0030], DOCSIS defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect)), and
process, based on the update to the software module, a second portion of the signal (¶[0057], data is processed after update (second digital stream is data generated after bandwidth adjustment request); ¶[0063], after adjustment, signals are processed according to the second version; Fig. 4, the signal is split into two portions (after LNA1) and each portion is converted to a digital stream at ADC1 and ADC2, each digital stream being passed to the DBB1 for processing, where each may further include portions, a first portion prior to updating to the second version, and a second portion after updating to the second version (see ¶[0057]); furthermore, while ¶[0050]-[0051] discuss possibly changing filter frequencies, that is an optional step (e.g. "may", "alternatively", etc., filter changes unrelated to change in bonded channel (DOCSIS) processing) but also, adjusting BW may still encompass a prior frequency).
Ling does not disclose that the determine an update is determine, based on a device type of the second computing device, an update, and send the update for the software module to the second computing device.
Lazar discloses sending the update for the software module to the second computing device (col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a network device connected to a cable modem termination system that provides data signals to the network device (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the modem may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - see also col. 3, lines 22-23; col. 8, lines 19-24, network device may be a gateway; col. 8, lines 8-15, an update may comprise new firmware (computer executable instructions); col. 5, lines 45-48, discloses that the update is to reconfigure operation of a DOCSIS firmware ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ling in view of Lazar for sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow for the automation of software updates in devices (such as gateways) that do not typically include memories large enough to maintain multiple versions of software locally (Lazar, col. 1, line 63 to col. 2, line 9).
The combined system of Ling and Lazar does not disclose that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
Carter discloses determining an update based on a type of a computing device (¶[0003], "cable modems used in a broadband cable modem termination system ("CMTS") are capable of transmitting and receiving Internet data using the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification ("DOCSIS") protocol"; ¶[0004], "Typically, each communication device is controlled with software"; ¶[0005], "The particular software file and version number is often referred to as the software `load`, or simply `load`"; ¶[0007], "equipment makers are constantly improving and upgrading their products. Such change to a product often includes the software load installed into a given device"; ¶[0008], "To provide updates to devices, such as, for example, cable modems, a service provider typically maintains a configuration file corresponding to a manufacturers device [...] an identifier is sent upstream to a central location that is operated by the service provider. Typically, the identifier is the media access control ("MAC") identification number"; ¶[0009], "the modem transmits the MAC address to a first server, typically a DHCP server, of the service provider; the MAC address is used to determine the appropriate configuration file that should be loaded into the modem. The vendor identifier contained in received MAC address is compared to values in a field of a database loaded on the DHCP server. When a match is found, associated information, including the configuration filename corresponding to the received MAC address is sent to the device having that MAC address" ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Ling and Lazar in view of Carter so that the determining an update is determining an update based on a device type of the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent a computing device from downloading a software version that is incompatible with the computing device.
Regarding claim 34, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a first version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0057], and [0063], DOCSIS is updated from a first version, which may be DOCSIS 3.0, to a second version; ¶[0030], DOCSIS 3.0 defines how to process physical signals at the physical layer including performing channel bonding (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect) (note ¶[0046] of present application, "update physical layer aspects […]by […] altering a channel bonding scheme" and also Volpe (DOCSIS 3.0 Tutorial - Downstream Channel Bonding - volpefirm.com - 2010), page 1, channel bonding is a physical layer aspect))).
Regarding claim 35, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update comprises machine-executable instructions for implementing physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2, inherently including software, see DOCSIS 2.0 specification, page 78)).
Regarding claim 36, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the updated software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Ling, ¶[0063], the update may change configuration from a first DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 3) to a second DOCSIS version (e.g. DOCSIS 2)).
Regarding claim 37, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the first computing device is further configured to send the update for the software module via the signal (Lazar, col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a gateway device connected to a cable gateway termination system that provides data signals to the gateway (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the gateway may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - applied to Ling, when the system of Ling is on a power saving mode (i.e. using a single channel), data and an update would be received from the same channel).
Regarding claim 38, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a spectrum range upon which the second computing device operates (Ling, ¶[0071]-[0072], to implement power saving techniques, the number of channels received by a front end of the gateway may be reduced (going from wideband to narrowband, see ¶[0069]) - one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to achieve high performance, the opposite would be done: the number of channels would be increased and if RF2 was receiving only frf11, after the update it would receive frf11 and frf12, which are different signals - ¶[0056] enables the method of going from narrowband to wideband).
Regarding claim 39, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a radio frequency bonding procedure of the software module (Ling, ¶[0032], modifying the number of bonded channels; ¶[0063], the modification to the bonded channels is done by updating the DOCSIS version).
Regarding claim 40, the combined system of Ling, Lazar, and Carter discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 31, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a procedure for generating, based on a first digital stream, a plurality of packets (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates packets (right hand of Fig. 4) from a bit stream (analog data signal received and processed at RF1 and passed as a digital signal to DBB1, which is configured to further process the data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074])) and
a procedure for generating, based on the plurality of packets, a second digital stream (Ling, Fig. 4, the processing generates a bit stream (left hand of Fig. 4) from a plurality of packets (left hand of Fig. 4) (packets received and processed at DBB1, which is configured to further process data according to the used standard, see ¶[0039] and ¶[0073]-[0074], and passed as an analog signal to TX1)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,729,054 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses a method, comprising:
sending, by a first computing device, a signal to a second computing device of a plurality of second computing devices (Claim 1),
wherein the second computing device processes a first portion of the signal based on a software module of the second computing device (Claim 1);
determining, based on a device type of the second computing device, an update for the software module of the second computing device (Claim 1); and
sending the update for the software module to the second computing device (Claim 1, inferred),
wherein the update causes the software module to process a second portion of the signal (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a first version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the device type of the second computing device indicates that a physical layer protocol of the second computing device is capable of being updated (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the physical layer protocol comprises at least one of a Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) protocol, a multimedia over coax alliance (MoCA) protocol, or a protocol for processing quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) based content streams (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the update comprises machine-executable instructions for implementing physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the updated software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising sending the update for the software module via the signal (Claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the update is configured to modify a spectrum range upon which the second computing device operates (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the update is configured to modify a radio frequency bonding procedure of the software module (Claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the update is configured to modify a procedure for generating, based on a first digital stream, a plurality of packets and a procedure for generating, based on the plurality of packets, a second digital stream (Claim 6).
Regarding claims 11-20, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-10 and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform the operations can be inferred from claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2. Accordingly, claims 11-20 are rejected for reasons similar to those stated in claims 1-10, above.
Regarding claims 21-30, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-10 and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform the operations can be inferred from claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2. Accordingly, claims 21-30 are rejected for reasons similar to those stated in claims 1-10, above.
Regarding claims 31-40, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-10 and “a system comprising: a first computing device” and “a second computing device” can be inferred from claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,729,054 B2. Accordingly, claims 21-30 are rejected for reasons similar to those stated in claims 1-10, above.
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 in view of Lazar (US 9146730 B2).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 discloses a method, comprising:
sending, by a first computing device, a signal to a second computing device of a plurality of second computing devices (Claim 1),
wherein the second computing device processes a first portion of the signal based on a software module of the second computing device (Claim 1);
determining, based on a device type of the second computing device, an update for the software module of the second computing device (Claim 1); and
wherein the update causes the software module to process a second portion of the signal (Claim 1).
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 does not disclose sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
Lazar discloses sending the update for the software module to the second computing device (col. 4, lines 56-58, discloses a coaxial cable input of a network device connected to a cable modem termination system that provides data signals to the network device (see col. 1, lines 34-48); col. 7, lines 21-25 discloses that updates to the modem may be transmitted over the same coaxial cable - see also col. 3, lines 22-23; col. 8, lines 19-24, network device may be a gateway; col. 8, lines 8-15, an update may comprise new firmware (computer executable instructions); col. 5, lines 45-48, discloses that the update is to reconfigure operation of a DOCSIS firmware ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 in view of Lazar for sending the update for the software module to the second computing device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow for the automation of software updates in devices (such as gateways) that do not typically include memories large enough to maintain multiple versions of software locally (Lazar, col. 1, line 63 to col. 2, line 9).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a first version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the device type of the second computing device indicates that a physical layer protocol of the second computing device is capable of being updated (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 3, above, wherein the physical layer protocol comprises at least one of a Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) protocol, a multimedia over coax alliance (MoCA) protocol, or a protocol for processing quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) based content streams (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update comprises machine-executable instructions for implementing physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the updated software module is configured for physical layer processing according to a second version of a physical layer protocol of the second computing device based on machine-executable instructions (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, further comprising sending the update for the software module via the signal (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a spectrum range upon which the second computing device operates (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a radio frequency bonding procedure of the software module (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2 and Lazar discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the update is configured to modify a procedure for generating, based on a first digital stream, a plurality of packets and a procedure for generating, based on the plurality of packets, a second digital stream (US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2, Claim 9).
Regarding claims 11-20, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-10 and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform the operations can be inferred from claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2. Accordingly, claims 11-20 are rejected for reasons similar to those stated in claims 1-10, above.
Regarding claims 21-30, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-10 and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform the operations can be inferred from claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2. Accordingly, claims 21-30 are rejected for reasons similar to those stated in claims 1-10, above.
Regarding claims 31-40, the limitations recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-10 and “a system comprising: a first computing device” and “a second computing device” can be inferred from claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,119,992 B2. Accordingly, claims 21-30 are rejected for reasons similar to those stated in claims 1-10, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-14, 23-24, and 32-33 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and by overcoming all double patenting rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446