CTNF 18/217,453 CTNF 88439 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are presented on 06/30/2023 for examination on merits. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent base claims. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Examiner's Instructions for filing Response to this Office Action When the Applicant submits amendments regarding to the claims in response the Office Action, the Examiner would appreciate Applicant if a clean copy of the claims is provided to facilitate the prosecution which otherwise requires extra time for editing the marked-up claims from OCR. Please submit two sets of claims: Set #1 as in a typical filing which includes indicators for the status of claim and all marked amendments to the claims; and Set #2 as an appendix to the Arguments/Remarks for a clean version of the claims which has all the markups removed for entry by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites “ extended service microcode update (MCU) ” deficiently, which is inconsistent with the recitation of “ an extended service microcode update (MCU) ” in claims 1 and 10, wherein the MCU is treated as a countable noun . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim element “machine-readable medium” in the claimed invention is likely directed to non ‐ statutory subject matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). It is noted that the Specification of this Application indicates the machine-readable storage media may include many types of media “without limitation.” See par. 0234; Further according to the Specification, the claimed medium may include any other type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations), or a machine-readable medium, typically covers forms of non ‐ transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is missing an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering nonstatutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 ‐ 57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The Examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to include non ‐ transitory computer readable storage medium. Any amendment to the claim(s) should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 8 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. The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are determined by the following reasons: Claim 8 recites “ the value of the processor extended service data ” without sufficient antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashok (US 20210103662 A1) in view of Bramley (US 20030074657 A1) . As per claim 1, Ashok teaches a method comprising: loading an extended service microcode update (MCU) to a memory of a processor ( Ashok par. 0022: A new microcode loader accessible memory region dedicated for the purposes of storing… i.e., loading a service microcode update; see par. 0031: A particular targeted deployment enabled patch will load successfully on a processor…with deployment enabled microcode patches; par. 0035-0036); reading processor identification data and processor extended service data from one or more registers of the processor ( Ashok par. 0028 and 0047: query a part-specific identifier such as the Protected Processor Inventory Number ( PPIN ), which can be read [for] CPUID; par. 0001, and service data … provided to the CPU vendor to create a part-specific entitlement license); identifying [in the MCU] an MCU extended service value based on the processor identification data ( Ashok par. 0028-0031, 0035, and 0047: reading a part-specific identifier; the standard microcode patch … to allow future targeted deployments…including the ability to query a part-specific identifier such as the Protected Processor Inventory Number (PPIN) Model Specific Register (MSR) that can be read and encrypted entitlement expiry date (optionally including the FMC data); see also the Abstract: the restricted deployment uCode update release using a service entitlement having a part identifier associated with the platform's CPU); and determining whether to apply the extended service MCU on the processor based on a comparison between the MCU extended service value and the processor extended service data ( Ashok par. 0062-0063: determining a match of the HMAC values from a license table, and in decision block 716 a determination is made to whether the provided HMAC and the (re)computed HMAC values match. If they match, the result of decision block 716 is a PASS, and the logic proceeds to block 718 in which the restricted deployment encryption date provided in the patch is decrypted. See par. 0029 for comparison with an entitlement license payload to determine if the current part is covered under a license that extends beyond the date this targeted deployment enabled microcode patch was built. See also par. 0070-0072 for the details of matching values for a decision to apply the patch ). However, Ashok does not explicitly disclose that it is in the MCU or the microcode update that an MCU extended service value is identified. In a related art, Bramley teaches: identifying in the microcode update (or MCU) an MCU extended service value ( Bramley , par. 0023-0025: read the expiration time and date; the CPU 203 determines if the current time has exceeded the expiration time and date for reviewing the feature. If the time is within the feature review or tryout time limit, the feature will be executed; otherwise, updates are read. Specifically, the updated BIOS including the new feature, the time testing code within the new feature and the new feature table can be then written back into the area where the original BIOS had been resident.) Ashok and Bramley are analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ashok’s system with Bramley’s teachings of read the new expiration time and date which is extended service value from the BIOS code. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the timeliness of security updates. As per claim 2, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 1 wherein the processor identification data comprises processor signature data and platform identification data ( Ashok par. 0047: The uCode or OS runtime loader then compares this recomputed HMAC with the provided HMAC to verify authenticity of the entitlement data; checking the signature against the signature generated with the public key embedded into the uCode suggests the signature data is included). As per claim 3, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 2 wherein identifying the MCU extended service value comprises: identifying an entry in an MCU data structure corresponding to the processor signature data ( Ashok par. 0047: the embedded signature means a field for storing the signature; see the comparing step comprising the signature generated with the public key embedded into the uCode); and identifying a field within the entry based on the platform identification data, the field encoding the MCU extended service value ( Ashok par. 0065: copied into the encrypted expiration date field of a license table 806). As per claim 6, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 1 wherein the extended service MCU is applied to the processor if the MCU extended service value is less than or equal to a value of the processor extended service data ( Bramley , par. 0023-0025: read the expiration time and date; the CPU 203 determines if the current time has exceeded the expiration time and date for reviewing the feature). As per claim 7, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 6 wherein the extended service MCU is applied to the processor by writing to a microcode patch memory of a microsequencer of the processor ( Ashok , par. 0078: BMC writing the uCode patch into uCode extension region 306 of BIOS flash device 1124). As per claim 9, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 1 wherein responsive to a purchase of an extended license for the processor, the processor extended service data is to be updated to include an updated value, the updated value to be compared with the MCU extended service value in a subsequent attempt to apply the MCU to the processor ( Bramley , par. 0023: the CPU 203 or the feature can determine if subsequent attempts to execute or use the feature is still within the allotted tryout time.). Regarding claims 10-12 , they are similar to claims 1-3 in view of the inventive features recited, respectively; and thus, claims 10-12 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above. Regarding claims 10-12 , they are similar to claims 1-3 in view of the inventive features recited, respectively; and thus, claims 10-12 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above. Regarding claims 17-19 , they are similar to claims 1-3 in view of the inventive features recited, respectively; and thus, claims 17-19 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above. Regarding claims 15-16 , they are similar to claims 6-7 in view of the inventive features recited, respectively, and thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashok and Bramley, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takashima (US 20070186110 A1; hereinafter “Taka”) . As per claim 5, the references of Ashok and Bramley as combined above teach the method of claim 2 but do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor signature data comprises data indicating a model of the processor (the selected option). This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference. In a related art, Taka teaches: wherein the processor signature data comprises data indicating one or more of (optional limitations follow): an extended family, an extended model, a type, a family, a model, and a stepping ( Taka par. 0366-0367: a signature set in the model/version certificate (MV Cert) is executed). Taka is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Ashok and Bramley system with Taka’s teachings of the signature data comprising a model. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the microcode update security. Regarding claim 14, the claim is similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashok and Bramley, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Abdulhamid (US 20240005004 A1; hereinafter “Abdul”) . As per claim 8, the references of Ashok and Bramley as combined above teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly disclose …. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference. In a related art, Abdul teaches: wherein the value of the processor extended service data comprises an M-bit value read from a processor register and the MCU extended service value comprises an M-bit value read from a header of the MCU ( Abdul , par. 0048-0049: the header may define a total patch length in 16-bit half words, bytes, bits, or other units of digital data). Abdul is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ashok-Bramley system with Abdul’s teachings of bits reading. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the accurate extraction of the service data . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4, 13, 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. Claims 4, 13, and 20 each recite elements of “ wherein the platform identification data comprises N bits read from a processor register, wherein identifying a field comprises using the N bits to identify a processor flag of 2N processor flags, the processor flag associated with the field. ” These elements and the features thereof in combination with the other limitations in the their base claims, are not anticipated by, nor made obvious over the prior art of record. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art additionally discloses certain parts of the claim features (See “PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited”) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272.9953. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 7:30 A.M to 5:00 P.M EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl G Colin can be reached on 571.272.3862. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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. / Don G Zhao /Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 09/15/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 2 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 3 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 4 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 5 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 6 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 7 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 8 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 9 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 10 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 11 Art Unit: 2493 Application/Control Number: 18/217,453 Page 12 Art Unit: 2493
Prosecution Insights