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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 15, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sangwan discloses:
“A method for file distribution to a plurality of devices in a wireless network, the method comprising: determining… an update package to be distributed to the devices in the wireless network; segmenting the update package into a plurality of chunks;” ([¶ 0113]: “At block 710, the network device (or component thereof) can divide a data package into a plurality of segments (e.g., segment 1 540a, segment 2 540b, or other segment of FIG. 5). In some examples, the data package is a firmware update (FWUP) or other type of data package.”)
“for each chunk of the update package, including the chunk in a predetermined management frame; and transmitting the predetermined management frames to the devices.” ([¶ 0115]: “At block 730, the network device (or component thereof) can transmit (or output for transmission), to the plurality of wireless communication devices starting at the first time, the plurality of subframes including the plurality of segments (e.g., in transmissions 540a of FIG. 5).” Wherein the frame is predetermined because it is according to the broadcast in 720.)
Sangwan does not explicitly disclose “an update identifier (ID).”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “an update identifier (ID).” ([¶ 0052]: “In many embodiment, image ID can be compared by checking values in a firmware header field such as an image ID. Image ID header filed can contain a numerical value but it should be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art that this field value is not limited to a number and can contain any value which can differentiate firmware versions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize update IDs as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing an update ID is that it prevents unnecessary updates, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata for describing the file, and the metadata comprises one or both of a byte sequence used to uniquely identify a type of device receiving the update package and a version number of the file.”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata for describing the file, and the metadata comprises one or both of a byte sequence used to uniquely identify a type of device receiving the update package and a version number of the file.” ([¶ 0046]: “Image header 314 can store a variety of fields including fields which can be utilized to (but is not limited to) identify the segment partition type, check the validity of the image stored within a partition, and/or identify a version of a firmware image.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize update IDs as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing an update ID is that it prevents unnecessary updates, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan further discloses “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, and the metadata comprises information about how often a chunk of the update package is included into a predetermined management frame.” ([¶ 0068]: “The devices (e.g., device 1 305a, device 2 305b, device 3 305c, device 4 305d, and device 5 305e) of FIG. 3 may be selected from wireless communication devices 120 of FIG. 1, and may each receive a periodic advertisement with response (PAwR) in a scan period 310. The scan period 310 may occur in regularly scheduled intervals and may be repeated periodically such that the devices (e.g., device 1 305a, device 2 305b, device 3 305c, device 4 305d, and device 5 305e) can awaken to scan for messages during this repeated scan period 310.” Wherein the metadata aspect is taught by Cook as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 6, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, and the metadata comprises a globally unique identifier for the update package that is synchronized across multiple networks, to allow a device moving between networks to resume the update package.”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, and the metadata comprises a globally unique identifier for the update package that is synchronized across multiple networks, to allow a device moving between networks to resume the update package.” ([¶ 0046]: “Image header 314 can store a variety of fields including fields which can be utilized to (but is not limited to) identify the segment partition type, check the validity of the image stored within a partition, and/or identify a version of a firmware image.” Wherein “to allow” is being interpreted as intended use.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize a global ID as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing a global ID is that it prevents errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “calculating a signature using an algorithm across at least a portion of the update package, wherein the signature is used to verify contents of the update package; including the signature in the update package; and transmitting the signature using one or more predetermined management frames or transmitting the signature independently through a frame.”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “calculating a signature using an algorithm across at least a portion of the update package, wherein the signature is used to verify contents of the update package; including the signature in the update package; and transmitting the signature using one or more predetermined management frames or transmitting the signature independently through a frame.” ([¶ 0049]: “In an illustrative example, a checksum generated using a MD5 hashing algorithm can generate a 16 byte hash of the area in which the checksum in computed. In many embodiments, the integrity of a firmware image segment can be verified using the checksums of individual components in an image partition including (but not limited to) the header checksum.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize a signature as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing a signature is that it allows faster error correction, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan further discloses “further comprising generating an update advertisement for the update package, wherein the update advertisement is composed of one or a combination of the update ID, a device type identifier, a firmware version, and a file length.” ([¶ 0068]: “The devices (e.g., device 1 305a, device 2 305b, device 3 305c, device 4 305d, and device 5 305e) of FIG. 3 may be selected from wireless communication devices 120 of FIG. 1, and may each receive a periodic advertisement with response (PAwR) in a scan period 310. The scan period 310 may occur in regularly scheduled intervals and may be repeated periodically such that the devices (e.g., device 1 305a, device 2 305b, device 3 305c, device 4 305d, and device 5 305e) can awaken to scan for messages during this repeated scan period 310.” Wherein the metadata aspect is taught by Cook as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 12, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan further discloses “further comprising receiving a frame indicating one or more missing chunks of the update package from a Station (STA) in the wireless network, directly transmitting the one or more missing chunks through an action management frame to the STA or broadcasting the one or more missing chunks through a predetermined management frame.” ([¶ 0110]: “In one or more examples, if after the transmission of the full data package by the network device 510 (e.g., access point), one or more of the wireless communication devices 520 did not successfully receive the full data package (e.g., missed one or more of the segments of the full data package), the one or more of the wireless communication devices 520 can send (e.g., transmit), to the network device 510, a retransmission message 560. The retransmission message 560 can indicate that the one or more of the wireless communication devices 520 did to receive the total number of segments of the full data package.”)
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1, with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is directed towards a method and claim 14 is directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Sangwan in paragraph 53. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Sangwan discloses:
“A method for receiving an update package distributed in a wireless network, the method comprising: wirelessly receiving a plurality of predetermined management frames;” ([¶ 0113]: “At block 710, the network device (or component thereof) can divide a data package into a plurality of segments (e.g., segment 1 540a, segment 2 540b, or other segment of FIG. 5). In some examples, the data package is a firmware update (FWUP) or other type of data package.”; [¶ 0115]: “At block 730, the network device (or component thereof) can transmit (or output for transmission), to the plurality of wireless communication devices starting at the first time, the plurality of subframes including the plurality of segments (e.g., in transmissions 540a of FIG. 5).” Wherein the frame is predetermined because it is according to the broadcast in 720.)
“determining … the update package from at least one of the predetermined management frames; extracting chunks of the update package from the predetermined management frames; storing the chunks; and constructing the update package from the chunks.” ([¶ 0122-0123]: “At block 830, the wireless communication device (or component thereof, such as at least one transceiver) can receive, from the network device starting at the first time, the plurality of subframes including the plurality of segments. In some aspects, the wireless communication device (or component thereof) can receive, from the network device, a broadcast command (e.g., broadcast command 550 of FIG. 5) indicating a second time for the wireless communication device to apply the data package. In some cases, the wireless communication device (or component thereof) can apply, at the second time, the data package.”)
Sangwan does not explicitly disclose “an update identifier (ID).”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “an update identifier (ID).” ([¶ 0052]: “In many embodiment, image ID can be compared by checking values in a firmware header field such as an image ID. Image ID header filed can contain a numerical value but it should be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art that this field value is not limited to a number and can contain any value which can differentiate firmware versions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize update IDs as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing an update ID is that it prevents unnecessary updates, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan further discloses “wherein one or more of the predetermined management frames comprise an update advertisement of the update package, and the update advertisement comprises one or a combination of the update ID, a device type identifier, a firmware version, and a length of the update package.” ([¶ 0068]: “The devices (e.g., device 1 305a, device 2 305b, device 3 305c, device 4 305d, and device 5 305e) of FIG. 3 may be selected from wireless communication devices 120 of FIG. 1, and may each receive a periodic advertisement with response (PAwR) in a scan period 310. The scan period 310 may occur in regularly scheduled intervals and may be repeated periodically such that the devices (e.g., device 1 305a, device 2 305b, device 3 305c, device 4 305d, and device 5 305e) can awaken to scan for messages during this repeated scan period 310.” Wherein the metadata aspect is taught by Cook as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 17, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “comparing the device type identifier in the update advertisement with a specific value; and comparing the firmware version in the update advertisement with a current firmware version.”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “comparing the device type identifier in the update advertisement with a specific value; and comparing the firmware version in the update advertisement with a current firmware version.” ([¶ 0046]: “Image header 314 can store a variety of fields including fields which can be utilized to (but is not limited to) identify the segment partition type, check the validity of the image stored within a partition, and/or identify a version of a firmware image.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize update IDs as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing an update ID is that it prevents unnecessary updates, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “further comprising resetting an in-progress reception state and restarting again according to a comparison result of the firmware version in the update advertisement.”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “further comprising resetting an in-progress reception state and restarting again according to a comparison result of the firmware version in the update advertisement.” ([¶ 0046]: “Image header 314 can store a variety of fields including fields which can be utilized to (but is not limited to) identify the segment partition type, check the validity of the image stored within a partition, and/or identify a version of a firmware image.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize update IDs as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing an update ID is that it prevents unnecessary updates, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “further comprising determining a signature of the update package, verifying contents of the update package according to the signature, and scheduling a firmware update when the update package is verified.”
However, Cook discloses the missing feature “further comprising determining a signature of the update package, verifying contents of the update package according to the signature, and scheduling a firmware update when the update package is verified.” ([¶ 0049]: “In an illustrative example, a checksum generated using a MD5 hashing algorithm can generate a 16 byte hash of the area in which the checksum in computed. In many embodiments, the integrity of a firmware image segment can be verified using the checksums of individual components in an image partition including (but not limited to) the header checksum.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan and Cook, to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize a signature as disclosed by Cook. The motivation for utilizing a signature is that it allows faster error correction, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1) and further in view of Harkude (US 20200301691 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, the metadata comprises the update ID of the update package, and the update ID is unique for a group of devices and is unique for each update package.”
However, Harkude discloses the missing feature “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, the metadata comprises the update ID of the update package, and the update ID is unique for a group of devices and is unique for each update package.” ([¶ 0018]: “In some embodiments, the plurality of other control panels and the plurality of sensors can include devices of different types, for example, different types of sensors and different models of control panels. In such embodiments, the firmware update file can be specific to only one of the different types, and the metadata file can include an internal marker or designation of that type.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Harkude to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize group types as disclosed by Harkude. The motivation for utilizing group types is that it prevents unnecessary updates, thus decreasing errors and improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Harkude to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1) and further in view of Vytla (US 20200092211 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, and at least a portion of the metadata is inserted in every Nth predetermined management frame, wherein N is a positive integer.”
However, Vytla discloses the missing feature “wherein the update package comprises a file and metadata, and at least a portion of the metadata is inserted in every Nth predetermined management frame, wherein N is a positive integer.” ([¶ 0044]: “For example, in one embodiment, the PTD header is inserted into every Nth packet, where the PTD policy specifies N.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Vytla to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize periodic metadata as disclosed by by Vytla. The motivation for not transmitting the header with each chunk is that it improves efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Vytla to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1) and further in view of Shen (US 20230315424 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “further comprising assigning each chunk with a chunk offset representing an offset of the chunk within the update package, and packaging each chunk to include a header to generate a packaged chunk (pchunk), wherein the header comprises the chunk offset and the update ID.”
However, Shen discloses the missing feature “further comprising assigning each chunk with a chunk offset representing an offset of the chunk within the update package, and packaging each chunk to include a header to generate a packaged chunk (pchunk), wherein the header comprises the chunk offset and the update ID.” ([¶ 0011]: “In some embodiments, the metadata of each section includes a section offset, a section starting address, and a section ending address of the section that corresponds to the section metadata.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Shen to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize section headers as disclosed by Shen. The motivation for utilizing section headers is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Shen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “wherein storing the chunks further comprises checking a chunk offset of a chunk, and storing the chunk according to the chunk offset.”
However, Shen discloses the missing feature “wherein storing the chunks further comprises checking a chunk offset of a chunk, and storing the chunk according to the chunk offset.” ([¶ 0011]: “In some embodiments, the metadata of each section includes a section offset, a section starting address, and a section ending address of the section that corresponds to the section metadata.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Shen to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to utilize section headers as disclosed by Shen. The motivation for utilizing section headers is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Shen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 13 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1) and further in view of Luo (US 20220150871 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “further comprising broadcasting a frame with a flag set indicating requesting missing chunks is allowed.”
However, Luo discloses the missing feature “further comprising broadcasting a frame with a flag set indicating requesting missing chunks is allowed.” ([¶ 0105]: “In an example embodiment, if the configuration information of the configure grant indicates that the transmission of the retransmitted packet is supported, when no newly transmitted packet arrives at a resource position indicated by configuration information of a configured grant, a retransmitted data packet may be sent at the resource position.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Luo to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to a retransmission capability indication as disclosed by Luo. The motivation for utilizing section headers is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Luo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “further comprising checking for any missing chunk of the update package, and requesting one or more missing chunks by transmitting a frame.”
However, Luo discloses the missing feature “further comprising checking for any missing chunk of the update package, and requesting one or more missing chunks by transmitting a frame.” ([¶ 0105]: “In an example embodiment, if the configuration information of the configure grant indicates that the transmission of the retransmitted packet is supported, when no newly transmitted packet arrives at a resource position indicated by configuration information of a configured grant, a retransmitted data packet may be sent at the resource position.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Luo to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to a retransmission capability indication as disclosed by Luo. The motivation for utilizing section headers is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Luo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 22, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan does not disclose “wherein requesting one or more missing chunks is performed after receiving a frame with a flag set indicating requesting missing chunks is allowed.”
However, Luo discloses the missing feature “wherein requesting one or more missing chunks is performed after receiving a frame with a flag set indicating requesting missing chunks is allowed.” ([¶ 0105]: “In an example embodiment, if the configuration information of the configure grant indicates that the transmission of the retransmitted packet is supported, when no newly transmitted packet arrives at a resource position indicated by configuration information of a configured grant, a retransmitted data packet may be sent at the resource position.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sangwan, Cook, and Luo to modify the technique as disclosed by Sangwan, to a retransmission capability indication as disclosed by Luo. The motivation for utilizing section headers is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sangwan with Cook and Luo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 23, Sangwan in view of Cook discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Sangwan further discloses “wherein the frame with a flag set indicating requesting missing chunks is allowed is a directed action management frame, a broadcast action management frame, a directed data frame, or a broadcast data frame sent by an Access Point (AP).” ([¶ 0037]: “The existing AP synchronization broadcast (e.g., PA containing a synchronization message) is subframe specific, meaning that a particular wireless communication device (e.g., ESL) can only receive a message transmitted within a subframe that the wireless communication device is subscribed. As such, under this existing method, if a central (e.g., a network device, such as an access point) uses broadcasting as a mechanism to transfer large data packages (e.g., divided into segments) to a plurality of wireless communication devices (e.g., ESLs), the central (e.g., access point) will need to manage the segments transmitted per subframe, which would not be very time efficient.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, of the closest prior arts Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Sangwan in view of Cook does not disclose “wherein the step of including each chunk in a predetermined management frame further comprises inserting the update advertisement and the chunk in a vendor Information Element (IE) of the predetermined management frame or inserting only the chunk in a vendor IE of the predetermined management frame to generate a vendor IE packaged chunk (vpchunk).” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 10 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 11, of the closest prior arts Sangwan (US 20250081035 A1) in view of Cook (US 20190018669 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Sangwan in view of Cook does not disclose “wherein transmitting the predetermined management frames further comprises transmitting one or more chunks of the update package to device type 1 in every Nth predetermined management frame, and transmitting one or more chunks of the update package to device type 2 in every Nth+1 predetermined management frame, wherein N is a positive integer.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 10 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights