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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 February 2026 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 14 have been amended. Claims 2 and 15 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 17-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 2, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to (or cancellation of) the claims. The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “responsive to verification of the respective one of the first firmware and the second firmware, sending a second signal, form the second sub-system, to the first sub-system to place the first sub-system into a second state, which allows the first sub-system to execute the respective one of the first firmware and the second firmware” in lines 10-13. It is not clear whether the second signal is sent a single time or if multiple second signals are sent sequentially. The relative timing of receiving multiple requests, sending the first signal, performing plural firmware verifications, and sending the second signal is not clear from the recited steps. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler, US Patent 2022/0179960, and Miyamoto, US Patent 11188321 (cited in the Office action mailed 18 June 2025).
In reference to Claim 1, Spangler discloses a method that includes receiving from a first sub-system and at a second sub-system, a request to verify firmware to be executed in association with a boot procedure (for example, see paragraph 0086, see also paragraph 0016); sending a first signal to the first sub-system to place it into a first state to prevent it from further performing the boot procedure (paragraph 0015); and responsive to verifying the firmware, sending a second signal to the first sub-system to place it into a second state that allows it to execute the firmware (paragraph 0015; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0111). However, Spangler does not explicitly disclose receiving plural requests to verify first and second firmware and verifying the first and second firmware, and further, Spangler does not explicitly disclose setting a register to a first value to place the first sub-system into the first state.
Miyamoto discloses a method that includes receiving requests to verify first and second firmware (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 14, verifying security firmware 8SP; column 6, lines 8-30, verifying other firmware 8 by the security firmware) and sending a first signal to set a register to a first value to place a first sub-system into a first state (see throughout the figures, access disable register 11, as well as other registers in Figures 4 and 9-11; see also column 6, lines 59-64, access disable register specifies whether fetch of firmware is permitted, and column 7, line 49-column 8, line 17, where the access disable register prohibits fetch of the firmware until verification is complete, where setting the access disable register to prohibit fetch constitutes the first value placing the system into the first state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the steps of suspending the boot process for each firmware verification (as in Miyamoto, at least two verifications) to prevent execution of potentially corrupted or malicious firmware (see Spangler, paragraph 0073), and it further would have been obvious to set a register to a first value to place the system into the first state as taught by Miyamoto, in order to help prevent unauthorized and malicious software from being executed (see Miyamoto, column 1, lines 62-64).
In reference to Claim 3, Spangler and Miyamoto further disclose setting a register to first or second values to prevent or allow the first sub-system to perform the boot procedure (Miyamoto, column 6, lines 59-64, access disable register specifies whether fetch of firmware is permitted, and column 7, line 49-column 8, line 17, where the access disable register prohibits fetch of the firmware until verification is complete, where setting the access disable register to permit fetch constitutes the second value placing the system into the second state; see also Spangler, paragraphs 0048, 0111).
Claims 4-6, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spangler, US Patent 2022/0179960, in view of Miyamoto, US Patent 11188321, and Sanchez Diaz et al, US Patent 10719606.
In reference to Claims 4 and 5, Spangler and Miyamoto disclose everything as detailed above with respect to Claim 1 above; however, neither Spangler nor Miyamoto explicitly discloses a timer. Sanchez Diaz discloses a method that includes a timer and sending the signal if verification occurred within a particular time period and terminating the boot procedure if verification did not occur within the particular time period (see column 4, line 59-column 5, line 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Spangler and Miyamoto to include the timer of Sanchez Diaz, in order to allow performing further actions if there is a problem with authentication (see Sanchez Diaz, column 5, lines 19-38).
In reference to Claim 6, Spangler discloses an apparatus that includes a processor and memory that includes instructions that cause the processor to, in response to a request from a first sub-system to verify firmware to be executed during a boot procedure (for example, see paragraph 0086, see also paragraph 0016), place a first sub-subsystem into a first state to prevent it from further performing the boot procedure (paragraph 0015; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0111); and responsive to verifying the firmware, placing the first sub-system into a second state to allow it to execute the firmware (paragraph 0015; see also paragraphs 0048 and 0111). Although Spangler discloses verifying firmware, Spangler does not explicitly disclose verifying a bootloader, and does not explicitly recite receiving plural requests to verify both the bootloader and secure firmware, and further, Spangler does not explicitly disclose setting a register to a first value to place the first sub-system into the first state.
Miyamoto discloses a method that includes receiving requests to verify first and second firmware (column 4, line 65-column 5, line 14, verifying security firmware 8SP; column 6, lines 8-30, verifying other firmware 8 by the security firmware) and sending a first signal to set a register to a first value to place a first sub-system into a first state (see throughout the figures, access disable register 11, as well as other registers in Figures 4 and 9-11; see also column 6, lines 59-64, access disable register specifies whether fetch of firmware is permitted, and column 7, line 49-column 8, line 17, where the access disable register prohibits fetch of the firmware until verification is complete, where setting the access disable register to prohibit fetch constitutes the first value placing the system into the first state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the steps of suspending the boot process for each firmware verification (as in Miyamoto, at least two verifications) to prevent execution of potentially corrupted or malicious firmware (see Spangler, paragraph 0073), and it further would have been obvious to set a register to a first value to place the system into the first state as taught by Miyamoto, in order to help prevent unauthorized and malicious software from being executed (see Miyamoto, column 1, lines 62-64).
However, although Spangler discloses verifying firmware and Miyamoto discloses verifying first and second firmware, neither Spangler nor Miyamoto explicitly discloses verifying a bootloader. Sanchez Diaz discloses preventing boot until bootloader code is verified in a similar manner as Spangler and Miyamoto disclose preventing boot until secure firmware is verified (see column 3, line 45-column 4, line 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Spangler and Miyamoto to repeat the steps of suspending the boot process for verification of both the firmware and the bootloader, to prevent execution of potentially corrupted or malicious firmware (see Spangler, paragraph 0073).
In reference to Claim 8, Spangler, Miyamoto, and Sanchez Diaz further disclose verifying the secure firmware and setting the register to allow the boot procedure to proceed (Miyamoto, column 6, lines 59-64, access disable register specifies whether fetch of firmware is permitted, and column 7, line 49-column 8, line 17, where the access disable register prohibits fetch of the firmware until verification is complete, where setting the access disable register to permit fetch constitutes the second value placing the system into the second state; see also Spangler, paragraphs 0086, 0015-0016, 0048, and 0111).
In reference to Claims 9 and 10, Spangler, Miyamoto, and Sanchez Diaz further disclose further requests to verify open firmware and setting the register to prevent or allow the first sub-system from performing the boot procedure and executing the open firmware (Spangler, paragraphs 0086, 0015-0016, 0048, and 0111; Miyamoto, column 6, lines 59-64, and column 7, line 49-column 8, line 17).
Claims 11-13 are directed to apparatus having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 4 and 5, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 is directed to a system having functionality similar to the systems of Claims 6 and 8 in combination, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
In reference to Claim 18, Spangler, Miyamoto, and Sanchez Diaz further disclose further requests to verify second firmware and setting the register to prevent or allow the first sub-system from performing the boot procedure and executing the second firmware (Spangler, paragraphs 0086, 0015-0016, 0048, and 0111; Miyamoto, column 6, lines 59-64, and column 7, line 49-column 8, line 17).
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are directed to systems similar to the apparatus of Claims 11-13, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wagner et al, US Patent 7095858, discloses a system that verifies firmware and sets a flag to prevent booting if failed.
Luciani, Jr. et al, US Patent 11580225, discloses a device that validates firmware and sets a flag to cause the system not to boot until cleared.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492