DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply to applicant communication filed on December 01, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 01, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s argues that the prior art on record fails to teach the amended limitation of independent claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made using the newly find prior arts to Cimadamore (US Pub. No. 2017/0116007).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US Pub. No. 2013/0080882) in view of Cossel (US Pub. No. 2003/0145219) and further in view of Cimadamore (US Pub. No. 2017/0116007).
As per claim 1 Cho discloses:
A method, comprising: receiving, by a computational storage device, a program, and a first parameter type descriptor; (abstract of Cho, a method for executing an application program is applied to an electronic device. A frame displayed by the electronic device includes a first icon, and the first icon corresponds to the application program. The method includes storing a first predetermined parameter corresponding to a first function of the application program) and (paragraph 24 of Cho, the first predetermined parameter can be a first predetermined graph, and the predetermined graph is a signature corresponding to the user).
Receiving, by the computational storage device, a program execute instruction comprising a second type descriptor; (paragraph 20 of Cho, the first icon 204 is dragged by the user to overlap at least part of the first graph 208, where to overlap the at least part of the first graph 208 means that the first icon 204 is touched an edge of the first graph 208 or the at least part of the first graph 208 is greater than a predetermined threshold).
Determining, by the computational storage device, that the second descriptor matches the first parameter type descriptor; (paragraph 20 of Cho, a processor of the electronic device 200 first executes identification on the first graph 208, where the identification can be "character identification" and "graph comparison". When the first predetermined parameter is a character or a value, the processor of the electronic device 200 executes the "character identification"; when the first predetermined parameter is a geometric graph or a user signature, the processor of the electronic device 200 executes the "graph comparison"….. the processor of the electronic device 200 identifies the first graph 208 as a first character. Then, the processor of the electronic device 200 compares the first character with the first predetermined character (the first predetermined parameter)).
Executing, by the computational storage device, the program. (Paragraph 20 of Cho, when the first character matches the first predetermined character (the first predetermined parameter), the first function of the application program is started).
Cho teaches the method of verifying the request by comparing the first parameter and the graph (see paragraph 20 of Cho) but fails to clearly disclose the method of determining, by the computational storage device, that the second parameter type descriptor matches the first parameter type descriptor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cossel teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 58 of Cossel, a call to the authentication manager 153 to execute the Get Parameter method 179 (FIG. 3) with the user parameter supplied as an attribute, etc. If multiple parameters are to be compared with those user parameters stored in the user parameter table 169, then multiple calls may be made to the authentication manager 153, one for each unauthenticated user parameter).
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 teaching of Cho and include the above limitation using the teaching of Cossel in order to secure the computing system using a parameter sharing mechanism in an authentication system and method (see paragraph 2 of Cossel).
The combination of Cho and Cossel teaches the method of verifying the request by comparing the first parameter and the graph (see paragraph 20 of Cho) but fails to clearly disclose:
The first parameter type descriptor indicating a type of a parameter of the program and the second parameter type descriptor indicating the type of the parameter of the program.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cimadamore teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 241 of Cimadamore, parameterized type descriptors 631-635 exist within the metadata (constant pool) of a generic or other class, such as 612. Generic class 612 uses (depends on) generic class 611. This dependency is captured by a field within parameterized type descriptor 631 that identifies generic class 611, shown as template 642. Generic class 611 has type parameters that must be bound to actual types before either of classes 611-612 may be instantiated) and (paragraph 242 of Cimadamore, each type parameter of generic class 611 corresponds to a respective type parameter of parameterized type descriptor 631, such as params 651-654. Each of params 651-654 should be bound to (refer to) a type).
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 teaching of Cho and Cossel to include the above limitation using the teaching of Cimadamore in order to describe, store and identify the parameter based on the parameter descriptor (see paragraph 541 of Cimadamore).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 2 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first parameter type descriptor comprises a first parameter type identifier and a second parameter type identifier. (Paragraph 25 of Cho, the time icon 503 displays time or a date of the electronic device 200, and the first personal icon 507 and the second personal icon 505 corresponds to an identification parameter of a first user and an identification parameter of a second user).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 3 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 2, further comprising: determining, based on stored data associated with the first parameter type identifier, a first parameter width of a first parameter associated with the first parameter type identifier; and interpreting a first received parameter based on the parameter width of the first parameter. (Paragraph 26 of Cho, the application program can be a read program for reading an electronic book having page numbers or line numbers. The usage parameter of the user is a first page number, size of a character, luminance of a screen displayed by the electronic book when the user turns off the application program (the read program) previous time. Therefore, when John finishes utilizing the read program, the electronic device 200 can store a first page number (e.g. a page number 5), size of a character, luminance of the screen, and so on, and an identification code corresponding to John presently displayed by the electronic book).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 5 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first parameter type descriptor comprises a terminator, the terminator signaling an end of the first parameter type descriptor. (Paragraph 26 of Cho, the application program can be a read program for reading an electronic book having page numbers or line numbers. The usage parameter of the user is a first page number, size of a character, luminance of a screen displayed by the electronic book when the user turns off the application program (the read program) previous time. Therefore, when John finishes utilizing the read program, the electronic device 200 can store a first page number (e.g. a page number 5), size of a character, luminance of the screen, and so on, and an identification code corresponding to John presently displayed by the electronic book).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 6 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first parameter type identifier identifies a device local memory type. (Paragraph 22 of Cho, in another embodiment of the present invention, the application program is a music player for playing music. In the embodiment, when an identified number is number "5", the first function can be playing the fifth album, the fifth song, or volume control 5 (the volume control ranges from 1-10), where the above-mentioned function can be determined by the application program designer or the user).
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 7 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 6, wherein the program execute instruction further comprises: a program slot identifier; a first parameter, corresponding to the first parameter type identifier; and a second parameter corresponding second parameter type identifier. (Paragraph 22 of Cho, in another embodiment of the present invention, the application program is a music player for playing music. In the embodiment, when an identified number is number "5", the first function can be playing the fifth album, the fifth song, or volume control 5 (the volume control ranges from 1-10), where the above-mentioned function can be determined by the application program designer or the user).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 8 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining, by the computational storage device, that the first parameter is a parameter of type device local memory; and determining that a memory range identifier of the first parameter falls within a memory range assigned to a program slot identified by the program slot identifier, wherein the executing of the program comprises executing the program based on: the determining that the first parameter is a parameter of type device local memory; and the determining that a memory range identifier of the first parameter falls within a memory range assigned to a program slot identified by the program slot identifier. (Paragraph 22 of Cho, in another embodiment of the present invention, the application program is a music player for playing music. In the embodiment, when an identified number is number "5", the first function can be playing the fifth album, the fifth song, or volume control 5 (the volume control ranges from 1-10), where the above-mentioned function can be determined by the application program designer or the user).
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 9 Cho in view of Cossel and further in view of Cimadamore discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a discovery command; and transmitting a response to the discovery command, the response comprising the first parameter type descriptor. (Paragraph 24 of Cho, in another embodiment of the present invention, in Step 102, the first predetermined parameter can be a first predetermined graph, and the predetermined graph is a signature corresponding to the user).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 9.
As per claim 10:
Cho teaches the method of verifying the request by comparing the first parameter and the graph (see paragraph 20 of Cho) but fails to clearly disclose:
The method of claim 9, wherein the response further comprises a parameter type information table.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cossel teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 58 of Cossel, a call to the authentication manager 153 to execute the Get Parameter method 179 (FIG. 3) with the user parameter supplied as an attribute, etc. If multiple parameters are to be compared with those user parameters stored in the user parameter table 169, then multiple calls may be made to the authentication manager 153, one for each unauthenticated user parameter).
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 teaching of Cho and include the above limitation using the teaching of Cossel in order to secure the computing system using the information listed in parameter table and authenticate the execution environment (see abstract of Cossel).
As per claim 21:
The combination of Cho and Cossel teaches the method of verifying the request by comparing the first parameter and the graph (see paragraph 20 of Cho) but fails to clearly disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first parameter type descriptor comprises parameter type identifiers corresponding to data type device local memory (DLM), data type double word, and a terminator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cimadamore teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 241 of Cimadamore, parameterized type descriptors 631-635 exist within the metadata (constant pool) of a generic or other class, such as 612. Generic class 612 uses (depends on) generic class 611. This dependency is captured by a field within parameterized type descriptor 631 that identifies generic class 611, shown as template 642. Generic class 611 has type parameters that must be bound to actual types before either of classes 611-612 may be instantiated) and (paragraph 242 of Cimadamore, each type parameter of generic class 611 corresponds to a respective type parameter of parameterized type descriptor 631, such as params 651-654. Each of params 651-654 should be bound to (refer to) a type).
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 teaching of Cho and Cossel to include the above limitation using the teaching of Cimadamore in order to describe, store and identify the parameter based on the parameter descriptor (see paragraph 541 of Cimadamore).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US Pub. No. 2013/0080882) in view of Cossel (US Pub. No. 2003/0145219) and further in view of Cimadamore (US Pub. No. 2017/0116007) and further in view of Berke (2016/0011802).
As per claim 4:
The method of claim 2, wherein: the first parameter type identifier has a first width and the second parameter type identifier has a second width, equal to the first width; (paragraph 20 of Cho, when the first character matches the first predetermined character (the first predetermined parameter), the first function of the application program is started).
The combination of Cho, Cossel and Cimadamore teaches the method of verifying the request by comparing the first parameter and the graph (see paragraph 20 of Cho) but fails to clearly disclose:
The first width is greater than 2 bits and less than 8 bits.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Berke teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 58 of Cossel, a call to the authentication manager 153 to execute the Get Parameter method 179 (FIG. 3) with the user parameter supplied as an attribute, etc. If multiple parameters are to be compared with those user parameters stored in the user parameter table 169, then multiple calls may be made to the authentication manager 153, one for each unauthenticated user parameter).
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 teaching of Cho and Cossel to include the above limitation using the teaching of Berke in order to secure the computing system using a parameter sharing mechanism in an authentication system and method (see paragraph 2 of Cossel).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Narayanaswami (US Pub. No. 2003/0011684). Narayanaswami discloses:
An image capturing system and method for automatically watermarking a plurality of recorded camera and image parameters such as the location (latitude, longitude and altitude), orientation of the principal axis of the camera, whether the camera is in landscape mode or portrait mode, camera velocity, photographer information, time and date, zoom factor, shutter speed, flash on/off, autofocus distance, lightmeter reading, focal length and aperture into every captured image. This watermarked data can be subsequently extracted and compared with the originally recorded data so as to verify the authenticity of a corresponding image. Since the critical data is invisibly watermarked into the image, it is difficult to modify the image without affecting the watermarked data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESHOME HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-3159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at (571) 272-3811. 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.
/TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434