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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner’s Remark
At the time of writing of the instant action, the Examiner is aware of potential avenues for advancing prosecution and encourages Applicant to contact the Examiner to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to imaging apparatus comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed one or more machine readable media includes transitory signals. The Specification does not describe the metes and bounds, but also does not exclude transitory signals (see, at least, ¶717-¶718).
Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is transitory signals. It has been noted that the ordinary and customary meaning of "computer readable storage medium" or a memory, to a person of ordinary skill in the art is broad enough to encompass both non-transitory and transitory media. See Ex parte Mewherter (Appeal 2012-007682) (Precedential). Transitory, propagating signals such as carrier waves are not within any of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Therefore, a claim directed to computer instructions embodied in a signal is not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The subject matter of the claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. "[t]he four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The MPEP instructs that when a claim covers ‘both statutory and non-statutory embodiments,’ it is not eligible for patenting. MPEP § 2106 (9th ed. Mar. 2014.).” quoting Mentor Graphics v. Synopsys (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2017, Precedential).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “and a second cache line containing second data or second that is encrypted” (emphasis added by the Examiner) and it is unclear as to what “second” element is being explicitly referenced; the language can refer, for instance, the second core, second key identifier, second hardware thread register or an element distinct from those. When a claim is amenable to two or plausible claim constructions, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the Applicant considers to be the invention. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
Any claim not specifically addressed above is being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of a claim upon which it depends.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feghali et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2019/0042481 A1), hereinafter referred to as Feghali, in view of Hunt (U.S. Pat App Pub 2019/0182040 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hunt.
Re claims 1 and 16: Feghali teaches a system comprising: a processor comprising: a first core including a first hardware thread register, the first core to: select a first key identifier stored in the first hardware thread register in response to receiving a first memory access request associated with a first hardware thread of a process (¶9; ¶11; Fig 4; ¶33-¶34).
Hunt teaches receiving a first memory access request associated with a first hardware thread of a process & memory controller circuitry coupled to the first core, the memory controller circuitry to: obtain a first encryption key associated with the first key identifier (¶7; ¶11; ¶12; Fig 1, elt 134; ¶16-¶18; ¶20-¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Feghali with the teachings of Hunt, for the purpose of protecting data from unauthorized execution as explicitly taught by Hunt (¶13).
Re claims 18 and 20: Feghali teaches a method and one or more machine readable media including instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: storing, in a first hardware thread register of a first core of a processor, a first key identifier assigned to a first hardware thread of a process (¶9; ¶11; Fig 4; ¶33-¶34).
Hunt teaches receiving a first memory access request associated with the first hardware thread; selecting the first key identifier stored in the first hardware thread register in response to receiving the first memory access request; and obtaining a first encryption key associated with the first key identifier (¶7; ¶11; ¶12; Fig 1, elt 134; ¶16-¶18; ¶20-¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Feghali with the teachings of Hunt, for the purpose of protecting data from unauthorized execution as explicitly taught by Hunt (¶13).
Re claim 15: The combination of Feghali and Hunt teaches the first memory access request corresponds to one of a first instruction to load data from memory, a second instruction to store data in the memory, or a third instruction to fetch code to be executed from the memory (Feghali: ¶9; ¶11; Fig 4; ¶33-¶34; Hunt: ¶7; ¶11; ¶12; Fig 1, elt 134; ¶16-¶18; ¶20-¶21).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feghali et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2019/0042481 A1), hereinafter referred to as Feghali, in view of Hunt (U.S. Pat App Pub 2019/0182040 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hunt, in further view of Durham (U.S. Pat App Pub 2021/0117342 A1), hereinafter referred to as Durham.
Re claims 2 and 17: The combination of Feghali and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated.
Durham teaches the first core is further to: select the first key identifier stored in the first hardware thread register based, at least in part, on a first portion of a pointer of the first memory access request (¶21; ¶23; ¶29; ¶81; ¶162; ¶172; ¶182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Feghali and Hunt with the teachings of Durham, for the purpose of preventing attacks & access to prohibited memory where keys are used to encrypt specific data referenced by the pointer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feghali et al (U.S. Pat App Pub 2019/0042481 A1), hereinafter referred to as Feghali, in view of Hunt (U.S. Pat App Pub 2019/0182040 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hunt, in further view of Sahita et al (U.S. Pat 10705976 B2), hereinafter referred to as Sahita.
Re claim 7: The combination of Feghali and Hunt teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as previously stated.
Sahita teaches the first portion of the pointer includes at least one bit containing a value that indicates whether a memory type of a memory location referenced by the pointer is private or shared (Figs 5 & 6; col 11, line 58 – col 13, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Feghali and Hunt with the teachings of Sahita, for the purpose of providing predictable variations in protecting memory that has been separately assigned as secured versus shared. Protecting and indexing the referencing values, as is done in Sahita, achieves this predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-14, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as addressing issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(2)/112(b) & 35 U.S.C. 101 addressed supra.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note:
The Examiner identified and designated “the particular part[s] [of the references] relied on” as provided in 37 C.F.R § 1.104(c)(2).
A reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples. In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) (A prior art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its examples.). Nor do disclosed examples teach away from a reference’s broader disclosure. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966) (All of the disclosures in a prior art reference “must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art.”).
“The prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The court has, thus, held that the USPTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for rejection, “together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
MPEP 2123 [R – 08.2012] states: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.").
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See: Ralston Purina Co. v. FarMar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985), In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000), Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and TurboCare Div. of Demag Delavel Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTOL-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN B SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-7pm EST, Monday-Thursday, 9am-5pm EST, Friday.
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, Joseph P Hirl can be reached at (571)272-3685. 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.
/DARREN B SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435