This action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/06/2026, in which claims 1, 9, 11, 19 and 21 are amended. Claims 1-21 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument focuses solely on Krzyzanowski. However, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of the cited references, not on Krzyzewski alone. While Krzyzanowski is relied upon for update ,management and deployment functionality, the additional references teach the claimed rollback procedure, including booting a prior OS version into an alternative boot target and enabling services therein following detection of an error.
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve system reliability and recovery from update failures. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 2023/0342162, referred herein after Griffin) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2017/0046229, referred herein after Hsu) and Rothman et al. (US 2004/0255106, Rothman).
As per claim 1, 11, 21, Griffin discloses a method comprising:
booting a first version of an operating system (OS) into a boot target (Fig. 3, step 310, [0041], booting primary operating system image in a first disk partition);
booting a second version of the OS into the boot target to replace the first version of the OS with the second version of the OS (Fig. 3, step 320, [0044], booting secondary operating system image in a second disk partition);
detecting an error associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target; and (Fig. 3, step 330, [0021], [0045], [0061], upon detecting the malfunction triggering event, version of OS is switched);
Griffin does not specifically discloses performing, using a processing device responsive to detecting the error, a rollback procedure by booting the first version of the OS into an alternative boot target;
Hsu discloses performing, using a processing device responsive to detecting the error, a rollback procedure by booting the first version of the OS into an alternative boot target ([0036], ” when firmware for the computer system 100 is updated, and there can be compatibility issues with updated firmware and other existing firmware and/or components. By storing a backup version of the secondary boot 120 in a partition of the primary boot 110, the computer system 100 can be “rolled back” to an earlier secondary boot until the firmware update issue can be resolved”);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Hsu’s Dual boot computer system into Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to automatically revert back to the original, working version of the OS by booting it into a different partition or target;
Nethoer Griffin nor Hsu specifically disclose the alternative boot target is to enable one or more software services that are prohibited to execute in the boot target;
However, Rothman disclose the alternative boot target is to enable one or more software services that are prohibited to execute in the boot target (Fig. 2B, step 234, selecting abother boot target, [0055]-[0057], wherein the different operating system partitioned boot target is prevented to execute as claimed);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Rothman’s recovery of operating system configuration data by firmware of computer system into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make firmware and OS updates safe, reliable, and operational — turning a risky process into a routine, low-impact maintenance task.
As per claim 3, 13, Hsu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the error associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target comprises:
determining that the second version of the OS prematurely stopped booting at a particular point during the booting of the second version of the OS; and ([0021], [0045], [0036], “the secondary boot 120 is not completed successfully the computer system 100”);
comparing the particular point to a predefined point associated with the booting of the second version of the OS ([0055], [0060]).
As per claim 4, 14, Griffin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the error associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target comprises:
determining that the second version of the OS booted into the boot target; and (Fig. 3, step 320, [0044], booting secondary operating system image in a second disk partition);
determining that the error occurs after the second version of the OS booted into the boot target ([0021], [0045]).
As per claim 10, 20, Hsu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting, from a plurality of services, a particular service based on the error; and ([0036], secondary boot is not completed successfully implies error occurred, selected to reboot from alternate image);
configuring the alternative boot target to launch the particular service responsive to performing the rollback procedure ([0036], alternate image is selected to launch operating system).
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin and Hsu in view of Zhu et al. (US 2024/0289262, referred herein after Zhu).
As per claim 2, 12, neither Griffin nor Hsu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
However, Zhu discloses generating the first version of the OS based on a dataset ([0027], abstract, “deploying multiple updates in a code repository of a version control system”, version is created using data);
modifying the dataset to generate a modified dataset; and generating the second version of the OS based on the modified dataset ([0020], data formatted and version updates are created);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Zhu’s automatic testing method into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to deploy multiple updates in a code repository of a version control system and map the multiple updates using multiple feature labels.
Claims 5-9, 15-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin and Hsu in view of Krzyzanowski et al. (US 2010/00157990, referred herein after Krzyzanowski).
As per claim 5, 15, neither Griffin nor Hsu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the error associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target comprises:
reading an error flag from a data storage location; and
determining that the error flag indicates one or more errors associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target;
However, Krzyzanowski discloses reading an error flag from a data storage location; and ([0176], flag is read from non-volatile storage upon unresponsive state of operating system);
determining that the error flag indicates one or more errors associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target ([0176], This flag may be set to select the fail-safe kernel by a process monitor daemon when the process monitor daemon determines that the operating system has been in an unresponsive state for a period of time that equals or exceeds a predetermined period of time, setting flag due to OS failure and taking fallback action ie forcing fail-safe image to boot);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Krzyzanowski’s error-flag mechanism into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the reliability of upgrading software components.
As per claim 6, 16, Griffin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the error associated with booting the second version of the OS into the boot target comprises:
detecting a second error associated with re-booting the second version of the OS into the boot target ([0021], [0045]).
Neither Hsu nor Griffin discloses re-booting the second version of the OS into the boot target; and
However, Krzyzanowski discloses re-booting the second version of the OS into the boot target; and ([0176], forcing the fail-safe kernel image to boot implies rebooting the second version of OS as claimed);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Krzyzanowski’s error-flag mechanism into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the reliability of upgrading software components.
As per claim 7, 17, neither Hsu nor Griffin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the rollback procedure further comprises:
terminating the second version of the OS to prevent the second version from executing in the boot target;
However, Krzyzanowski discloses terminating the second version of the OS to prevent the second version from executing in the boot target ([0176], [0177], forcing to boot the system from fail-safe image implies the preventing the use of faulty second version);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Krzyzanowski’s error-flag mechanism into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the reliability of upgrading software components.
As per claim 8, 18, neither Hsu nor Griffin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a severity level associated with the error; and (
determining whether the severity level satisfies a predefined threshold value; and either: performing a remedy procedure to mitigate the error responsive to determining that the severity level satisfies the predefined threshold value, or performing a roll-forward procedure by booting the second version of the OS into the boot target responsive to determining that the severity level does not satisfy the predefined threshold value;
However, Krzyzanowski discloses determining a severity level associated with the error; and ([0346], [0348], severity determined);
determining whether the severity level satisfies a predefined threshold value; and either: performing a remedy procedure to mitigate the error responsive to determining that the severity level satisfies the predefined threshold value, or performing a roll-forward procedure by booting the second version of the OS into the boot target responsive to determining that the severity level does not satisfy the predefined threshold value ([0348]-[0351], severity level high and fix/remedy is deployed as claimed);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Krzyzanowski’s error-flag mechanism into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the reliability of upgrading software components.
As per claim 9, 19, neither Hsu nor Griffin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the alternative boot target is further to: disable one or more software services that are permitted to execute in the boot target, or disable one or more hardware components that are permitted to execute in the boot target;
However, Krzyzanowski discloses the alternative boot target is further to: disable one or more software services that are permitted to execute in the boot target, or disable one or more hardware components that are permitted to execute in the boot target ([0350], [0351], making target device inactive implies disabling target device as claimed);
Therefore it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Krzyzanowski’s error-flag mechanism into Hsu’s Dual boot computer system and Griffin’s parallel boot operating system because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the reliability of upgrading software components.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/KAMINI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights