DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 04, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument, see pp. 25, “The amended claims require a specific ordering: updated paired components are deployed, fxVF establishes the secure connection prior to activation, integrity is verified, the updated components are activated while maintaining availability, and the old versions are deactivated only after successful activation. Fitzgerald does not disclose that sequence”, the Examiner agrees. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, has been withdrawn.
However, the specific ordering noted by Applicant’s remarks is not supported by Application’s specification. As best understood, Applicant’s specification, see ¶0079-0080, describes the sequencing of the upgrade procedure (i.e., updating the paired components) as being similar to the Application Provisioning Procedure (i.e., Fig. 12, see ¶0075). However, although Fig. 12 illustrates steps for creating a secure tunnel between fxManager 1230 and fxDevice 1240 (ref. 1206) and separately for creating a secure tunnel between FxManager 1230 and fxCloud 1250 (ref. 1210), Fig 12 fails to show the particular timing of when a secure connection is established between the fxDeviceApp 1240 and the fxCloudApp 1250, much less the connection between the fxDeviceApp 1240 and the fxCloudApp 1250 being established in the specific ordering (i.e., after deploying the second versions of the fxDeviceApp and fxCloudApp, but prior to performing the integrity check and activation of the second versions) that Applicant acknowledges is required by the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted in Applicant’s 05/04/2026 remarks (see pp. 25), the amended claims (see claims 1, 10 and 19) require a specific ordering:
“updated paired components are deployed” (i.e., “initiating, by an application manager, a rolling update of the distributed application by deploying a second version of the fxDeviceApp to an execution environment on the first network element and deploying a corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp to an execution environment on the second network element”),
“fxVF establishes the secure connection prior to activation” (i.e., “causing, by the application manager and prior to activation of the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp, a virtual messaging fabric (fxVF) to establish a secure connection between the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp”),
“integrity is verified” (i.e., “verifying, by or under control of the application manager, integrity of the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp based on validating a cryptographic signature over an application binary and an associated manifest”),
“the updated components are activated while maintaining availability” (i.e., “activating the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp while maintaining availability of the distributed application”), and
“the old versions are deactivated only after successful activation” (i.e., “deactivating the first version of the fxDeviceApp and the first version of the fxCloudApp after successful activation of the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp.”).
However, the particular sequencing currently claimed (i.e., after deploying the second versions of the fxDeviceApp and fxCloudApp, but prior to performing the integrity check and activation of the second versions, establishing a secure connection between the second versions) was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 incorporate the deficiencies of claims 1 and 10, respectively, through dependency, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons as noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20, although rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), are allowed over the prior art for purpose of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, in the specific sequence recited by Applicant’s claimed invention:
“…executing, on a first network element, a first version of an fxDeviceApp component of the distributed application;
executing, on a second network element, a corresponding first version of an fxCloudApp component of the distributed application;
initiating, by an application manager, a rolling update of the distributed application by deploying a second version of the fxDeviceApp to an execution environment on the first network element and deploying a corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp to an execution environment on the second network element;
causing, by the application manager and prior to activation of the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp, a virtual messaging fabric (fxVF) to establish a secure connection between the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp;
verifying, by or under control of the application manager, integrity of the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp based on validating a cryptographic signature over an application binary and an associated manifest;
activating the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp while maintaining availability of the distributed application; and
deactivating the first version of the fxDeviceApp and the first version of the fxCloudApp after successful activation of the second version of the fxDeviceApp and the corresponding second version of the fxCloudApp.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights