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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to CLAIMS entered for patent application 19/084,585 filed on March 19, 2025.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims are shown in the original filing of the claims, but in the amended claims they are not shown as being cancelled, and thus their status is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470).
Regarding claim 1, Qui discloses a distribution system that includes a head end connected to a plurality of customer devices through a transmission network that includes a node that converts digital data to analog data suitable for said plurality of customer devices, where said node includes a processor (para. [0001]; optical line terminal; Fig. 1, the OLT is made of a primary device and multiple secondary devices, each of them comprising at least one CPU), the node performing the following steps using the processor: (a) said node receiving an image file including at least one of kernel software, hardware configuration data, and application software (para. [0033]); (b) said node parsing said image file to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated as being modified from that currently being included on said node (paras. [0033]-[0037]. The control and forwarding planes of the secondary devices are reset independently; this is only possible if the image file provided by the primary device contains firmware/software updates targeted to each of these planes.); (c) said node installing at least portions of said image file on said node and resetting portions of said node (paras. [0035]-[0037]).
It could be argued that Qui does not explicitly disclose said node receiving a single image file including (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, and thus Qui would not disclose said node parsing said image file that includes said (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, nor determining portions of said image file that have been indicated as not being modified from that currently being included on said node. However, in analogous art, Nidumolu discloses “a scenario in which a network device (300) has been prepared for an operating system upgrade, a software image (312) has been transferred to a network device data repository (310), and a boot file of the network device (300) has been modified to point to the software image (312) stored in the network device data repository (310) (para. [0059]),” wherein “the network device (300) is to be updated from operating system version 4.23 (320) that is currently executing in the control plane (304) of the network device (300) to a new software version, operating system version 4.27 (314) (para. [0060]),” wherein the software image 312 includes transitional updates 318 and operating system version 4.27 314 (See figure 3), wherein it is well-known in the art that version updates can obviously contain kernel software, and Nidumolu further discloses that “a transitional update (118), when applied to a network device (100), may alter the operation of any hardware and/or software of the network device (100) in order to facilitate successful deployment of a new software version (114) on the network device (100) (para. [0038]).”
Further, Nidumolu discloses that, after extracting a transitional update database from the software image, “[i]n Step 210, a determination is made whether there are any required transitional updates that need to be applied to the network device before, during, and/or after the reboot to the a software version. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the determination is made by performing a query of the information in the transitional information database and information related to the network device being upgraded. For example, the transitional update database may include a table that indicates that if the network device is currently executing a certain version of an operating system, and also has certain platform information (e.g., model type), then a certain one or more transitional updates should be applied. In one or more embodiments of the invention, if no transitional updates are required, the process continues to Step 220. If, on the other hand, a determination is made that one or more transitional updates are required, the process proceeds to Step 212 (para. [0051]; see also figure 2),” which teaches that certain elements are to be updated while other elements are not.
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 Qui to allow for said node to receive a single image file including (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, said node parsing said image file that includes said (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, and also to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated as not being modified from that currently being included on said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known updating technique to include all of the relevant information necessary in order to properly perform a system update, including only updating elements which require an update.
The combination of Qui and Nidumolu does not disclose said node parsing said image file to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by at least one flag as being modified from that currently being included on said node, determining portions of said image file that have been indicated by said at least one flag as not being modified from that currently being included on said node, said node installing at least portions of said image file on said node as indicated by said at least one flag as being modified and resetting portions of said node, and thus does not disclose installing and resetting portions of the node based upon said at least one flag as being modified. However, in analogous art, Buga discloses that “[w]henever an update is made available, the system must determine the current RP [release package] and the target RP. The list of packages to be changed can be obtained by comparing the snapshot for current RP and target RP, taking into consideration that packages may be added, removed or updated. In order to handle a case in which a device has skipped an update, the virtual snapshots for current and target RPs should be compared. An example of an update set is shown in FIG. 35 A device is at RP 1 and updating to RP 3. By comparison of virtual snapshots, 3 packages are found to need an update. The analysis should be performed on the update server, rather than on the device (para. [0174]),” wherein an Update file can contain a RebootFlag which “indicates if reset of headunit should be proceed after update or not (Table 2, see also paras. [0078]-[0180]).” 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 Qui and Nidumolu to allow for said node parsing said image file to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by at least one flag as being modified from that currently being included on said node, to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by said at least one flag as not being modified from that currently being included on said node, said node installing at least portions of said image file on said node as indicated by said at least one flag as being modified and resetting portions of said node, installing and resetting portions of the node based upon said at least one flag as being modified. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique for providing signaling to be used.
Regarding claim 11, Qui discloses a method for updating an embedded device that includes a processor (para. [0001]; optical line terminal; Fig. 1, the OLT is made of a primary device and multiple secondary devices, each of them comprising at least one CPU), comprising the steps of: (a) said embedded device receiving an image file including at least one of kernel software, hardware configuration data, and application software (para. [0033]); (b) said embedded device parsing said image file to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by at least one flag as being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device (paras. [0033]-[0037]. The control and forwarding planes of the secondary devices are reset independently; this is only possible if the image file provided by the primary device contains firmware/software updates targeted to each of these planes.); (c) said embedded device installing at least portions of said image file on said embedded device and resetting portions of said embedded device based upon said at least one flag (paras. [0035]-[0037]).
It could be argued that Qui does not explicitly disclose said embedded device receiving a single image file including (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, and thus Qui would not disclose said embedded device parsing said image file that includes said (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, nor determining portions of said image file that have been indicated as not being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device. However, in analogous art, Nidumolu discloses “a scenario in which a network device (300) has been prepared for an operating system upgrade, a software image (312) has been transferred to a network device data repository (310), and a boot file of the network device (300) has been modified to point to the software image (312) stored in the network device data repository (310) (para. [0059]),” wherein “the network device (300) is to be updated from operating system version 4.23 (320) that is currently executing in the control plane (304) of the network device (300) to a new software version, operating system version 4.27 (314) (para. [0060]),” wherein the software image 312 includes transitional updates 318 and operating system version 4.27 314 (See figure 3), wherein it is well-known in the art that version updates can obviously contain kernel software, and Nidumolu further discloses that “a transitional update (118), when applied to a network device (100), may alter the operation of any hardware and/or software of the network device (100) in order to facilitate successful deployment of a new software version (114) on the network device (100) (para. [0038]).”
Further, Nidumolu discloses that, after extracting a transitional update database from the software image, “[i]n Step 210, a determination is made whether there are any required transitional updates that need to be applied to the network device before, during, and/or after the reboot to the a software version. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the determination is made by performing a query of the information in the transitional information database and information related to the network device being upgraded. For example, the transitional update database may include a table that indicates that if the network device is currently executing a certain version of an operating system, and also has certain platform information (e.g., model type), then a certain one or more transitional updates should be applied. In one or more embodiments of the invention, if no transitional updates are required, the process continues to Step 220. If, on the other hand, a determination is made that one or more transitional updates are required, the process proceeds to Step 212 (para. [0051]; see also figure 2),” which teaches that certain elements are to be updated while other elements are not.
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 Qui to allow for said embedded device to receive a single image file including (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, said embedded device parsing said image file that includes said (i) kernel software, (ii) hardware configuration data, and (iii) application software, and also to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated as not being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known updating technique to include all of the relevant information necessary in order to properly perform a system update, including only updating elements which require an update.
The combination of Qui and Nidumolu does not disclose said embedded device parsing said image file to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by at least one flag as being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device, determining portions of said image file that have been indicated by said at least one flag as not being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device, said embedded device installing at least portions of said image file on said embedded device as indicated by said at least one flag as being modified and resetting portions of said embedded device, and thus does not disclose installing and resetting portions of the embedded device based upon said at least one flag as being modified. However, in analogous art, Buga discloses that “[w]henever an update is made available, the system must determine the current RP [release package] and the target RP. The list of packages to be changed can be obtained by comparing the snapshot for current RP and target RP, taking into consideration that packages may be added, removed or updated. In order to handle a case in which a device has skipped an update, the virtual snapshots for current and target RPs should be compared. An example of an update set is shown in FIG. 35 A device is at RP 1 and updating to RP 3. By comparison of virtual snapshots, 3 packages are found to need an update. The analysis should be performed on the update server, rather than on the device (para. [0174]),” wherein an Update file can contain a RebootFlag which “indicates if reset of headunit should be proceed after update or not (Table 2, see also paras. [0078]-[0180]).” 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 Qui and Nidumolu to allow for said embedded device parsing said image file to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by at least one flag as being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device, to determine portions of said image file that have been indicated by said at least one flag as not being modified from that currently being included on said embedded device, said embedded device installing at least portions of said image file on said embedded device as indicated by said at least one flag as being modified and resetting portions of said embedded device, installing and resetting portions of the embedded device based upon said at least one flag as being modified. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique for providing signaling to be used.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470) and Narayanan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0352613).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the distribution system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising said node resetting software applications in a control plane. However, in analogous art, Narayanan discloses that in a network forwarding device, “there will be instances where the connectivity between the control plane and the data plane gets disrupted. The disruption of the connectivity may be due to various reasons (e.g., one of the control-plane nodes restarted or crashed, one of the data-plane forwarding network elements restarted, intermittent/transient network issues in the control plane—data plane connectivity, an application restarting on the control plane, etc.) (para. [0003]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for said node to reset software applications in a control plane. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known steps to be taken in a well-known environment.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising said embedded device resetting software applications in a control plane. However, in analogous art, Narayanan discloses that in a network forwarding device, “there will be instances where the connectivity between the control plane and the data plane gets disrupted. The disruption of the connectivity may be due to various reasons (e.g., one of the control-plane nodes restarted or crashed, one of the data-plane forwarding network elements restarted, intermittent/transient network issues in the control plane—data plane connectivity, an application restarting on the control plane, etc.) (para. [0003]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for said node to reset software applications in a control plane. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known steps to be taken in a well-known environment.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470), Narayanan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0352613) and Cornelius et al. (Pub. No.: US 2004/0015857).
Regarding claim 3, the combination as stated above discloses the distribution system of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising modifying at least one of said software applications as a result of resetting said node. However, in analogous art, Cornelius discloses that “[i]f the remote software module 160 or a stage remains non-responsive after the resetting or restarting, the management system 14 has the capability to do one or more of the following: (1) remotely change technical parameters associated with one or more remote software modules 160; (2) remotely change technical parameters associated with any software stage, (3) remotely upgrade a portion of a software module, (4) remotely upgrade an entire software module and (5) modify another software component via the communications network 16 (para. [0082]).” 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 above art to allow for modifying at least one of said software applications as a result of resetting said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary updates to be made to the system.
Regarding claim 13, the combination as stated above discloses the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising modifying at least one of said software applications as a result of resetting said embedded device. However, in analogous art, Cornelius discloses that “[i]f the remote software module 160 or a stage remains non-responsive after the resetting or restarting, the management system 14 has the capability to do one or more of the following: (1) remotely change technical parameters associated with one or more remote software modules 160; (2) remotely change technical parameters associated with any software stage, (3) remotely upgrade a portion of a software module, (4) remotely upgrade an entire software module and (5) modify another software component via the communications network 16 (para. [0082]).” 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 above art to allow for modifying at least one of said software applications as a result of resetting said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary updates to be made to the system.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470) and Zhou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0058631).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the distribution system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising modifying said software dataplane as a result of resetting said node. However, in analogous art, Zhou discloses that when applying changes to a data plane of a packet handler, “[a]fter extracting the state information, pausing the network traffic, and resetting the resources, if necessary, control plane 122 apply changes to components data plane 121 (204) (para. [0023]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for modifying said software dataplane as a result of resetting said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary updates to be made to the system.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising modifying said software dataplane as a result of resetting said embedded device. However, in analogous art, Zhou discloses that when applying changes to a data plane of a packet handler, “[a]fter extracting the state information, pausing the network traffic, and resetting the resources, if necessary, control plane 122 apply changes to components data plane 121 (204) (para. [0023]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for modifying said software dataplane as a result of resetting said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary updates to be made to the system.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470) and Schultz et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0062956).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the distribution system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising said node resetting software applications in a software dataplane. However, in analogous art, Schultz discloses that a certain “calculation takes advantage of the fact that if the data plane app 342 gets restarted for any reason, it will leave a gap in the minute column (para. [0154]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for said node resetting software applications in a software plane. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary updates to be made to the system.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising said embedded device resetting software applications in a software dataplane. However, in analogous art, Schultz discloses that a certain “calculation takes advantage of the fact that if the data plane app 342 gets restarted for any reason, it will leave a gap in the minute column (para. [0154]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for said node resetting software applications in a software plane. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary updates to be made to the system.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470) and Ong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0051314).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the distribution system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a hard reset of said node. However, in analogous art, Ong discloses that “the server 104 may communicate an instruction to the mobile device 112 instructing how to remedy the problem. For example, the mobile device 112 may instruct the fiber node to perform a hard reset and/or to execute a program script in an attempt to remedy the error (para. [0042]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for a hard reset of said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary actions to be taken to remedy problems that typically arise over time with components of a system.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a hard reset of said embedded device. However, in analogous art, Ong discloses that “the server 104 may communicate an instruction to the mobile device 112 instructing how to remedy the problem. For example, the mobile device 112 may instruct the fiber node to perform a hard reset and/or to execute a program script in an attempt to remedy the error (para. [0042]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for a hard reset of said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary actions to be taken to remedy problems that typically arise over time with components of a system.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (EP 3,407,187) in view of Nidumolu (Pub. No.: US 2019/0303129) and Buga et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0282470) and Matthews et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0023528).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the distribution system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a soft reset of said node. However, in analogous art, Matthews discloses that “[i]t may be determined whether an error occurred (block 420). For example, server 115 may recognize when an error (e.g., a connection error, a client error, etc.) occurs. Conversely, client 125 may recognize when an error (e.g., a connection error, a server error, etc.) occurs. When an error occurs, a reset process may be initiated (e.g., either by client 125 or server 115). The reset process may correspond to a soft reset or a hard reset. (para. [0040]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for a soft reset of said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary actions to be taken to remedy problems that typically arise over time with components of a system.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Qui, Nidumolu and Buga discloses the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a soft reset of said embedded device. However, in analogous art, Matthews discloses that “[i]t may be determined whether an error occurred (block 420). For example, server 115 may recognize when an error (e.g., a connection error, a client error, etc.) occurs. Conversely, client 125 may recognize when an error (e.g., a connection error, a server error, etc.) occurs. When an error occurs, a reset process may be initiated (e.g., either by client 125 or server 115). The reset process may correspond to a soft reset or a hard reset. (para. [0040]).” 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 Qui, Nidumolu and Buga to allow for a soft reset of said node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for necessary actions to be taken to remedy problems that typically arise over time with components of a system.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected. Claims 18-20 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 pm.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights