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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 4, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 4, 2025 amended claims 1, 15, and 18. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and corresponding arguments filed on December 4, 2025 regarding the newly presented claim limitations in the independent claims have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot. While the Applicant has amended the independent claims in an attempt to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the amendment necessitates rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, as explained in detail in the rejections that follow. With respect to the merits, the independent claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combination of Stoschek, Katori, and Parkinson, as explained in detail in the rejections that follow.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Each of these claims 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.
Each of independent claims 1, 15, and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant is requested to provide evidence from the specification to support any amended claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation: “Applicant is requested to provide evidence from the specification to support any amended claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation: “wherein the predefined time is associated with a regulatory requirement and the regulatory requirement is associated with the subset of the collision avoidance and detection data structure for zero or more aircraft in an environment of the type of aircraft” as recited in each of claims 1, 15, and 18.
While the Applicant remarks that “support for these amendments is found, e.g., in the originally filed claims and in the specification in para. 5-7”, Examiner has reviewed these paragraphs and has not found any support in the specification for the foregoing claim amendment.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-17, and 19-21 fail to resolve the deficiencies of their respective independent claims. As a consequence, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph for the same reasons stated above.
Appropriate amendments to each of independent claims 1, 15, and 18 are required correct the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 & 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding each of independent claims 1, 15, and 18, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation: “the regulatory requirement is associated with the subset of the collision avoidance and detection data structure for zero or more aircraft in an environment of the type of aircraft.” For example, it is unclear how a regulatory requirement would exist for zero aircraft. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “aircraft” in “an environment of the type of aircraft” is referring to the aircraft containing the electronic device or another aircraft.
Appropriate amendments are required correct the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment. For the purposes of an examination of the merits, the Examiner will strike-out the verbiage associated with the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b). The Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of the foregoing claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoschek et al. (US 2022/0026928) in view of Katori et al. (US 2013/0103907) in further view of Parkinson (US 2019/0221273).
Regarding claim 1, Stoschek teaches an electronic device, (see Stoschek at the Abstract which discloses a monitoring system for an aircraft has sensors configured to sense objects around the aircraft and provide data indicative of the sensed objects and that a sense and avoid system is designed in a plurality of software layers, each layer functioning in an independent manner; see Stoschek at [0027] in conjunction with Fig. 2A, for example, which discloses a combination of some components from the sensors 20, 30, the sensing system 205, and the planning and avoidance system 220 function together as a “sense and avoid” element 210. Examiner maps sense and avoid element to the recited electronic device.)
comprising: a first type of memory storing a collision avoidance and detection data structure having a predefined size; (see Stoschek at the Abstract which discloses a monitoring system for an aircraft has sensors configured to sense objects around the aircraft and provide data indicative of the sensed objects and that a sense and avoid system is designed in a plurality of software layers, each layer functioning in an independent manner; see Stoschek at the Abstract which further discloses that the evasion software layer is made up of fixed, non-modifiable code that meets an applicable regulatory standard. Examiner maps the plurality of software layers of the sense and avoid system to the collision avoidance and detection data structure. Examiner notes that fixed code has a predefined size. Also, see Stoschek at [0048-0050] in conjunction with Fig. 4 which depicts sensing system 205 and which discloses the deconfliction layer 207 and the evasion layer 209 may respectively include one or more processors 410 and 450, one or more of memory 440 and 480, one or more of data interfaces 420 and 460, and at least one local interface 415 and 455, that the processors 410, 450 may be configured to execute instructions stored in memory 440, 480 in order to perform various functions, such as processing of sensor data from the sensors 20, 30 (FIGS. 1, 2A, 2B). See Stoschek at [0053] which discloses that the deconfliction layer 207 may, in some embodiments, employ a machine learning algorithm to classify and detect the location of an object 15 in order to better assess its possible flight performance, such as speed and maneuverability, and threat risk and that in this regard, the deconfliction layer 207 may store object data 445 in memory 440 that is indicative of various types of objects, such as birds or other aircraft, that might be encountered by the aircraft 10 during flight. See Stoschek at [0055] in conjunction with Fig. 5 which discloses an alternate embodiment of a configuration of the sensing system 205 that presents an embodiment where the deconfliction layer 207 and the evasion layer 209 share one or more processing resources 510 and one or more of memory 530 that stores sensor data 545 and object data 540. Stoschek at Fig. 5 illustratively depicts object data being stored in object data memory 540 and sensor data being stored in sensor data memory 545. Examiner notes that the object data memory 445, 540 comprises a type of memory which stores object data. Examiner maps memory for storing object data 445, 530 to the first type of memory. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
a second type of memory; (see Stoschek at [0048-0056] in conjunction with Figs. 4 and 5; see Fig. 4 which depicts memory 480 storing evasion logic; see Fig. 5 which depicts deconfliction layer (memory) 207 storing deconfliction logic 430 and evasion layer (memory) 209 storing evasion logic 470. Examiner maps any one of memories 207, 209, 480 to a second type of memory.)
and a processor coupled to the first type of memory and the second type of memory, wherein the electronic device is configured to: access a subset of the collision avoidance and detection data structure based at least in part on current conditions, wherein the subset is less than the predefined size, and the current conditions comprise a position and speed of the electronic device, (see Stoschek at [0031] which discloses that the aircraft controller 245 is a reactive system, taking in the recommendation of the sense and avoid system 210 and reacting thereto and that the aircraft controller 245 may control the velocity of the aircraft 10 in an effort to follow an escape path 35, thereby avoiding a sensed object 15, and alternatively, the aircraft controller 245 may navigate to a desired destination or other location based on the sensed object 15; see Stoschek at Fig. 5 which discloses processor 510 communicatively coupled to memories 207, 209, 530 via local interface 515; see Stoschek at [0053] which discloses that the deconfliction layer 207 may store object data 445 in memory 440 that is indicative of various types of objects, such as birds or other aircraft, that might be encountered by the aircraft 10 during flight; see Stoschek at [0055] which further discloses that Fig. 5 presents an embodiment where the deconfliction layer 207 and the evasion layer 209 share one or more processing resources 510 and one or more of memory 530 that stores sensor data 545 and object data 540. Examiner notes that controlling the velocity of the aircraft including controlling navigation toward a desired destination corresponds to comprising a position and speed of the electronic device. Examiner notes that a portion or subset of object data of the various types of objects corresponds to a subset of the collision avoidance and detection data structure. For example, object data corresponding to that of either a bird or an aircraft, for example, is an example of a subset of the collision avoidance and detection data structure. Stoschek at [0055] further discloses that in some embodiments, sensor data used by the evasion layer 209 may differ from sensor data used by the deconfliction layer, so as to be stored separately in memory 530, or in different memories and that in other embodiments, there may be redundancy of sensor data between the two layers. Stoschek at Fig. 5 illustratively depicts bidirectional movement of data between the various memories 207, 209, 540, 545 via the local interface 515. Therefore, data may be accessed from one of the various memories and stored into another of the various memories.)
wherein the electronic device is configured for use in a type of aircraft (see Stoschek at the Abstract which discloses a monitoring system for an aircraft including a sense and avoid system such that the aircraft may be controlled to avoid a collision with an object; see Stoschek at [0019] which discloses that Fig. 1 depicts the aircraft 10 as an autonomous vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft 10, however, the aircraft 10 may be of various types. Examiner mapped sense and avoid element to the recited electronic device. Examiner notes that VTOL aircraft is a type of aircraft.)
While Stoschek discloses a subset of the collision avoidance and detection data structure, Stoschek does not expressly disclose and load the subset from the first type of memory to the second type of memory which, in a related art, Katori teaches (Examiner previously showed that various object data teaches the subset of of the collision avoidance and detection data structure. See Katori at [0059] which discloses the data input-output unit 112 reads out data of the non-volatile memory unit 111 according to a request from the program 114, the prefetch execution unit 118, or the like, and transfers the data to a requester, that in addition, the data input-output unit 112 stores the data which is read out from the non-volatile memory unit 111 to the main memory unit 113; see Katori at [0061] which discloses that the main memory unit 113 is a volatile memory unit, and is used as a work memory of the system. Examiner notes that transferring the data read out from the non-volatile memory unit and storing the data to the main memory unit 113 which is a volatile memory unit corresponds to loading the data from the first type of memory (i.e., non-volatile memory) to the second type of memory (i.e., volatile memory).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoschek to load data from the first type of memory to the second type of memory, as taught by Katori.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to perform prefetching data from a first memory unit, and moving the data to a second memory unit, as suggested by Katori at the Abstract.
As Examiner had shown earlier, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device (Examiner previously mapped Stoschek’s sense and avoid system 210 to the electronic device.) and the subset (Examiner previously mapped object data such as bird or aircraft object data to the subset.).
The modified Stoschek further discloses wherein the subset is loaded in less than a predefined time; (Examiner previously showed that various object data teaches the subset of of the collision avoidance and detection data structure. See Katori at the Abstract which discloses a memory management device includes a prefetch execution unit which performs prefetching of data from a first memory unit, and moving the data to a second memory unit; see Katori at [0059] which discloses the data input-output unit 112 reads out data of the non-volatile memory unit 111 according to a request from the program 114, the prefetch execution unit 118, or the like, and transfers the data to a requester, that in addition, the data input-output unit 112 stores the data which is read out from the non-volatile memory unit 111 to the main memory unit 113. Katori at [0059] further discloses that in addition, data input-output unit 112 stores the data which is read out from the non-volatile memory unit 111 to the main memory unit 113, and reads out the data stored in the main memory unit 113, and transfers the data to the requestor when there is a request of reading out of the same data in a next time, in order to speed up the processing. Examiner notes that the read out of data from the non-volatile memory and storing of the data into the main memory unit 113 occurs at a predefined time in order to make the data available for its use by a requester in the next time. Examiner previously noted that in light of what is written in the specification, at [0032], the specification discloses that “Additionally, the subset may be loaded before it is needed or used. For example, the subset may be prefetched.” Examiner maps the prefetching of data, such that it is available for use by a requester, to wherein the subset is loaded in less than a predefined time since the data is loaded in less than the time so that it may be made available for use by a requester.)
The modified Stoschek does not expressly disclose and wherein the predefined time is associated with a regulatory requirement which in a related art, Parkinson teaches (see Parkinson at [0037] which discloses that a maintenance component 150, in one embodiment, is configured to perform one or more data rewrite operations and/or other memory maintenance operations on one or more memory elements 123, to reduce and/or eliminate uncorrectable errors due to cumulative disturb effects, or the like, that in some embodiments, in order to avoid delaying user memory operations, a maintenance component 150 may perform data rewrite and/or other maintenance operations during a refresh window or other predefined time period after a refresh command and/or request (e.g., from a memory controller, a device controller 126, from a device driver, from a host computing device 110, from a processor 111, from a storage client 116, or the like), and that a maintenance component 150, in certain embodiments, may repurpose, reuse, and/or override a refresh command from a protocol and/or specification for a different type of memory (e.g., a volatile memory standard). Examiner maps a volatile memory standard to a regulatory requirement. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoschek to include wherein the predefined time is associated with a regulatory requirement, as taught by Parkinson.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to perform one or more data rewrite operations and/or other memory maintenance operations on one or more memory elements 123, to reduce and/or eliminate uncorrectable errors due to cumulative disturb effects, or the like, as suggested by Parkinson at [0037].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first type of memory comprises a non-volatile memory (see Katori at [0059] which discloses the data input-output unit 112 reads out data of the non-volatile memory unit 111 according to a request from the program 114.)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second type of memory comprises a volatile memory (see Katori at [0061] which discloses that the main memory unit 113 is a volatile memory and is used as a work memory of the system.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first type of memory comprises flash memory and the second type of memory comprises dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (see Katori at [0097] which discloses that a DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) 213 is adopted as a specific example of a main memory unit 113. Also, see Katori at [0098] which discloses that in the Blu-ray disk recorder 201, a flash memory 211 is adopted as a specific example of a non-volatile memory unit 111.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the subset is loaded before it is needed or used (see Katori at the Abstract which discloses a memory management device includes a prefetch execution unit which performs prefetching of data from a first memory unit, and moving the data to a second memory unit; see Katori at [0059] which discloses the data input-output unit 112 reads out data of the non-volatile memory unit 111 according to a request from the program 114, the prefetch execution unit 118, or the like, and transfers the data to a requester, that in addition, the data input-output unit 112 stores the data which is read out from the non-volatile memory unit 111 to the main memory unit 113. Examiner maps prefetching of data to the subset or data being loaded before it is needed or used. Examiner notes that in light of what is written in the specification, at [0032], the specification discloses that “Additionally, the subset may be loaded before it is needed or used. For example, the subset may be prefetched.”)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein accessing the subset comprises dynamically generating the subset (see Stoschek at [0039] which discloses that when an object 15 is detected, each of the evasion layer 209 and the deconfliction layer 207 receives data from the sensors 20, 30 and follows a respective process to provide position and vector information to the planning and avoidance system 220 and that the evasion layer 209 uses a deterministic method that uses information stored in memory (for example, a set of pre-established ‘if-then-else’ rules or other closed-form mathematical expressions), to provide position and vector data. Examiner notes that performing a respective process to provide position and vector information to the planning and avoidance system when an object is detected, corresponds to dynamically providing that position information and vector data by way of using the information stored in memory. Examiner has showed a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the subset is dynamically adapted as a function of time (see Stoschek at [0004] which discloses that the detection, recognition, and/or avoidance of sensed objects may, in some instances, include one or more intelligent (e.g., autonomous) components capable of independently adapting to new data and previously-performed computations and that such components may not rely on explicitly programmed instructions, instead applying machine learning techniques to progressively generate modified, improved models and algorithms for predictive analyses. Examiner notes that to progressively generate modified, improved models corresponds to a data subset being dynamically adapted as a function of time. Examiner has showed a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
Regarding claim 10, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance and detection data structure was previously subdivided into different subsets having associated indexing information (see Stoschek at [0055] in conjunction with Fig. 5 which discloses an embodiment where the deconfliction layer 207 and the evasion layer 209 share one or more processing resources 510 and one or more of memory 530 that stores sensor data 545 and object data 540 and that in one embodiment, the evasion logic 470 will not use object data 540 in its analysis of the acquired sensor data, if the algorithms of evasion logic 470 are not robust enough to perform the detailed classification performed by the deconfliction logic 430; Stoschek at [0055] further discloses that in other embodiments, the evasion logic may be more robust, for example, using the object data 540 to, for example, perform some type of pattern matching with past object data or templates, that in some embodiments, sensor data used by the evasion layer 209 may differ from sensor data used by the deconfliction layer, so as to be stored separately in memory 530, or in different memories and that in other embodiments, there may be redundancy of sensor data between the two layers. Examiner notes that sensor data being stored separately (indexed separately) in different memories corresponds to a data structure being subdivided into different subsets having associated indexing information.)
Regarding claim 11, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 10 wherein at least two of the subsets, at least in part, partially overlap (see Stoschek at [0055] which discloses that in other embodiments, the evasion logic may be more robust, for example, using the object data 540 to, for example, perform some type of pattern matching with past object data or templates, that in some embodiments, sensor data used by the evasion layer 209 may differ from sensor data used by the deconfliction layer, so as to be stored separately in memory 530, or in different memories and that in other embodiments, there may be redundancy of sensor data between the two layers. Examiner notes that having redundancy of sensor data between the two layers corresponds to wherein at least two of the subsets, at least in part, partially overlap.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the subset is specified by a pretrained predictive model (see Stoschek at [0004] which discloses that the detection, recognition, and/or avoidance of sensed objects may, in some instances, include one or more intelligent (e.g., autonomous) components capable of independently adapting to new data and previously-performed computations and that such components may not rely on explicitly programmed instructions, instead applying machine learning techniques to progressively generate modified, improved models and algorithms for predictive analyses.)
Regarding claim 13, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the current conditions comprise: an altitude of the electronic device, or a heading of the electronic device (see Stoschek at [0023] which discloses that the aircraft monitoring system 5 may use information about the aircraft 10, such as the current operating conditions of the aircraft (e.g., airspeed, altitude, orientation (e.g., pitch, roll, or yaw), throttle settings, available battery power, known system failures, etc.), capabilities (e.g., maneuverability) of the aircraft under the current operating conditions, weather, restrictions on airspace, etc., to generate one or more paths that the aircraft is capable of flying under its current operating conditions.).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Stoschek teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the position corresponds to a three-dimensional (3D) track of the electronic device, and the position is relative to a second electronic device (see Stoschek at [0020] which discloses that the aircraft 10 has one or more sensors 20 of a first type for monitoring space around aircraft 10, and one or more sensors 30 of a second type for providing sensing of the same space or sensing of additional spaces; Stoschek at [0020] further discloses that any number of sensors, and any number of types of sensors may comprise the illustrated sensors 20, 30, that these sensors may, in various embodiments, be any appropriate optical or non-optical sensor(s) for detecting the presence of objects, such as an electro-optical or infrared (EO/IR) sensor (e.g., a camera), a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor, transponders, inertial navigation systems and/or global navigation satellite system (INS/GNSS), or any other sensor type that may be appropriate and that a sensor may be configured to receive a broadcast signal (e.g., through Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology) from the object 15 indicating the flight path of the object 15; see Stoschek at [0031] which discloses that alternatively, the aircraft controller 245 may navigate to a desired destination or other location based on the sensed object 15. Examiner notes that using global navigation satellite system and the aircraft controller to navigate to a desired destination or other location corresponds to a 3D track of the electronic device. Examiner further notes that the location of the aircraft may be relative to an object in which the object’s flight path may be determined by way of ADS-B technology.)
Claims 15-17 are directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, that causes the processor to perform the steps of the electronic device of claims 1-3 and 7. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7 teach the steps recited in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 15-17. Therefore, claims 15-17 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-3 and 7.
Claims 18-20 are directed toward a method, that performs the steps recited in the electronic device of claims 1-3 and 7. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 7 teach the steps recited in the method of claims 18-20. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-3 and 7.
Claim 21 is directed toward a method that performs the steps recited in the electronic device of claim 12. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejection of claim 12 teach the steps recited in the method of claim 21. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claim 12.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoschek et al. (US 2022/0026928) in view of Katori et al. (US 2013/0103907) in view of Parkinson (US 2019/0221273) and further in view of Renno (US 2010/0057960).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Stoschek does not expressly disclose the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the subset is predefined or predetermined which in a related Renno teaches (see Renno at [0055] which discloses that registers may also be loaded with a predetermined value during reset, so that the size and beginning address of the protected domains are correct after reset.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stoschek to include wherein the subset is predefined or predetermined, as taught by Renno.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the size and beginning address of the protected domains are correct after reset, and that logic may be implemented to preload these registers with values found in non-volatile memory, as suggested by Renno at [0055].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664