DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications received 4/12/2023, this is the first Office action on the merits. The claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received 4/12/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 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. 11 the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and confirming the authenticity of the data using the authenticity confirmation information to be indicated as valid with the validity information”. However, it is unclear which specific piece of authenticity confirmation information is being confirmed, as multiple pieces of authenticity confirmation information are being managed, as the claim states the authenticity confirmation information is “to be indicated as valid” with validity information. It is unclear what “to be” constitutes.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “…and is indicated as valid with the validity information in response to an instruction for invalidating the first authenticity confirmation information”. However, it is unclear what indicates the validity of the validity information, or what requirements exist for the data to be considered valid. It is unclear why specifically the first authenticity confirmation information would be invalidated, such as some specific trigger, as the claim states that the authenticity confirmation information is “to be” indicated as valid with validity information. It is unclear what the process for invalidating a credential entails. It is further unclear what “to be” constitutes.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the authenticity of the data confirms in parallel with startup processing for the information processing apparatus and restricts the startup processing in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed”. However, it is unclear what component confirms this authenticity of data, merely that the data is confirmed in parallel with startup processing, and then a subsequent process should the authenticity of the data not be confirmed. The claim recites the act of “startup processing”, but the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs this function.
Regarding Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the authenticity confirmation information is restricted from being updated by being stored in a storage area where erasing and writing of data are restricted”. However, this is indefinite – it is unclear how the updating of the data can occur when the storage area can be written to only once, as recited in claims 4 and 5.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an operation state of the information processing apparatus is shifted to a predetermined state”. However, it is unclear exactly how this operation state is shifted or by what components perform this shifting of the operation state; it is further unclear what this predetermined state could be or entails.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “and confirming the authenticity of the data using the authenticity confirmation information to be indicated as valid with the validity information”. However, it is unclear which specific piece of authenticity confirmation information is being confirmed, as multiple pieces of authenticity confirmation information are being managed, as the claim states the authenticity confirmation information is “to be indicated as valid” with validity information. It is unclear what “to be” constitutes.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “…and is indicated as valid with the validity information in response to an instruction for invalidating the first authenticity confirmation information”. However, it is unclear what indicates the validity of the validity information, or what requirements exist for the data to be considered valid. It is unclear why specifically the first authenticity confirmation information would be invalidated, such as some specific trigger, as the claim states that the authenticity confirmation information is “to be” indicated as valid with validity information. It is unclear what the process for invalidating a credential entails. It is further unclear what “to be” constitutes.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “and confirming the authenticity of the data using the authenticity confirmation information to be indicated as valid with the validity information”. However, it is unclear which specific piece of authenticity confirmation information is being confirmed, as multiple pieces of authenticity confirmation information are being managed, as the claim states the authenticity confirmation information is “to be indicated as valid” with validity information. It is unclear what “to be” constitutes.
Claim 13 further recites the limitation “…and is indicated as valid with the validity information in response to an instruction for invalidating the first authenticity confirmation information”. However, it is unclear what indicates the validity of the validity information, or what requirements exist for the data to be considered valid. It is unclear why specifically the first authenticity confirmation information would be invalidated, such as some specific trigger, as the claim states that the authenticity confirmation information is “to be” indicated as valid with validity information. It is unclear what the process for invalidating a credential entails. It is further unclear what “to be” constitutes.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the authenticity of the data confirms in parallel with startup processing for the information processing apparatus and restricts the startup processing in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed”. However, it is unclear what component confirms this authenticity of data, merely that the data is confirmed in parallel with startup processing, and then a subsequent process should the authenticity of the data not be confirmed. The claim recites the act of “startup processing”, but the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs this function.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the authenticity confirmation information is restricted from being updated by being stored in a storage area where erasing and writing of data are restricted”. However, this is indefinite – it is unclear how the updating of the data can occur when the storage area can be written to only once, as recited in claims 16 and 17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an operation state of the information processing apparatus is shifted to a predetermined state”. However, it is unclear exactly how this operation state is shifted or by what components perform this shifting of the operation state; it is further unclear what this predetermined state could be or entails.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19 fall accordingly.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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.
Claim 1 is directed to “update the validity information associated with the first authenticity confirmation information”. Claims 12 and 13 recite similar limitations. The limitation in question does not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. There is no algorithm or process that describes this updating process. Additionally, there is no element/component that performs this updating within the information processing apparatus. The written specification recites the updating of firmware or executable code, but does not specify the updating of the validity information in particular, nor any particular element that performs this updating process.
Claim 2 is directed towards “wherein the authenticity of the data confirms in parallel with startup processing for the information processing apparatus and restricts the startup processing in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed”. Claim 14 recites similar limitations. However, there is no algorithm, process, or description for confirming the authenticity of the data. Additionally, there is no element/component that performs this confirmation within the information processing apparatus. Further, there is nothing in the written specification that describes how the startup processing is restricted, or what the restriction entails for the startup processing. [0052] recites the act of restricting the startup processing, but this is simply narrative in nature and does not encompass how in particular this restriction takes place or entails.
Claim 3 is directed towards “wherein the startup processing stops in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed”. Claim 15 recites similar limitations. However, there is no algorithm, process, or description for confirming the authenticity of the data, nor any details regarding why the authenticity may not be confirmed. Additionally, there is no element/component that performs this function within the information processing apparatus. [0044] describes signature verification processing using a public key that was previously confirmed, but this has not been designated as any particular data to be confirmed.
The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163(I)(A) states “…issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing”.
Merely pointing to an original claim does not satisfy the written description requirement, unless the claim itself conveys enough information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. MPEP 2161.01 states “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the results is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”. See MPEP 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
In this case, there lacks sufficient detail in the specification to support [3, add detail]. MPEP 2163.03(V) states “The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not satisfy that requirement of describing the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed”. No steps or procedure for updating validity information or confirming the authenticity of data4 is found explained at all or with sufficient detail. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could achieve this act, because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.
As in MPEP 2161.01(I), “The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could design a method to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681 – 683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 4 – 11 and 16 – 20 fall accordingly.
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 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The determining limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers performance in the mind with aid of a (e.g., pen and paper), because the claims read on “managing a plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information”, “managing validity information indicating whether each of the plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information is valid”, “confirming the authenticity of the data using the authenticity confirmation information”, and “update the validity information associated with the first authenticity confirmation information”. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps (“managing”, “confirming”, “updating”, “startup processing”, “storing”), there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them to the analysis and determination being done in the human mind. The same requirements for the aforementioned functions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations may impose is well known. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, taken both individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recitations of managing, confirming, updating, and processing are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 recites “managing a plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information”, “managing validity information”, “confirming the authenticity of the data’, “update the validity information”, but this amounts to no more than a mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The “processor” that performs these steps is also recited at a high level of generality, which amount to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim recites at a high level of generality the actions performed such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. The process behind the results of the claims is absent – only the mere idea of their outcome is recited. No actual improvements to the aforementioned functions are asserted – only the process and its resulting outcome. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. additionally, there is no proposed improvement to the process of managing information or updating information, nor how they are carried out. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “managing a plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information”, “managing validation information”, “confirming the authenticity of the data”, and “update the validity information”. The claim recites at a high level of generality the actions performed such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. The process behind the results of the claims is absent – only the mere idea of their outcome is recited. No actual improvements to the aforementioned functions are asserted – only the process and its resulting outcome. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. additionally, there is no proposed improvement to the process of managing information or updating information, nor how they are carried out. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “managing a plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information”, “managing validation information”, “confirming the authenticity of the data”, and “update the validity information”. The claim recites at a high level of generality the actions performed such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. The process behind the results of the claims is absent – only the mere idea of their outcome is recited. No actual improvements to the aforementioned functions are asserted – only the process and its resulting outcome. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. additionally, there is no proposed improvement to the process of managing information or updating information, nor how they are carried out. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al (US 2022/0108016 A1), hereinafter Nakata, in view of Yamaguchi et al (US 2014/0196134 A1), hereinafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakata discloses “An information processing apparatus comprising: at least a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program” (Nakata: The Abstract describes how host code executable(s) (i.e., program) is stored on a nonvolatile memory device (NVM) (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable storage medium));
“and at least a processor configured to execute the program to perform a method” (Nakata: [0033] describes how the NVM processor executes stored instructions (i.e., programs));
“managing a plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information used to confirm authenticity of data” (Nakata: Figure 4 and [0063] describe the use of a digital certificate which can include an encrypted code integrity value (i.e., authenticity confirmation information), such as an executable hash. A nonvolatile memory device can store multiple code integrity values at a time that are used to prove integrity of NVM code, as described in [0117]);
“and confirming the authenticity of the data using the authenticity confirmation information to be indicated as valid with the validity information” (Nakata: [0064] describes how a host device can validate the digital signature (which includes the encrypted code and public key), which is done by comparing code integrity value to a code check (i.e., validity information) provided by the NVM device);
“and update the validity information associated with the first authenticity confirmation information” (Nakata: [0081] describes how a digital signature can be generated “on-the-fly” (i.e., updated) in response to a hash value (code integrity value) being generated from the digital certificate, which replaces the prior digital certificate (which contains the code integrity value). Examiner sees the code check value of Nakata as equivalent to a validity information).
Nakata discloses the above subject matter content, but fails to expressly disclose “wherein in a case where the authenticity of the data is confirmed using second authenticity confirmation information that is different from first authenticity confirmation information and is indicated as valid with the validity information in response to an instruction for invalidating the first authenticity confirmation information”.
However, analogous art from the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi, teaches this: ([0007] describes the process of verification to verify the validity of a control program. Verification data (i.e., authenticity confirmation information) is generated during execution of the program).
Therefore, based on Nakata in view of Yamaguchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Yamaguchi to the system of Nakata in order to provide a verification method for verifying the validity of an executed program (Yamaguchi, [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the authenticity of the data confirms in parallel with startup processing for the information processing apparatus” (Nakata: [0044] describes how boot loader code (i.e., executed at startup) is executed, where the authentication of the NVM device (and its stored “AppsSW”, or software (i.e., programs)) can be performed. Authentication data is read from the NVM device, which can include the code integrity value (i.e., authenticity confirmation data));
“and restricts the startup processing in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed” (Yamaguchi: [0207 – 0209] describes the process of evaluating verification data to determine if it matches comparison data. In the event a match does not occur, remote control of a device in communication with the terminal device is stopped, which is an example of restriction of processing).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the startup processing stops in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed” (Yamaguchi: [0207] describes where verification data (i.e., authenticity confirmation data) is received from the terminal device. This is then compared with comparison data to determine a match. In the event the comparison data does not match the verification data [0208], control of a device in communication with the terminal is prohibited (i.e., stopped)).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the authenticity confirmation information is stored in a storage area that can be written only once” (Nakata: [0043] describes how the host device is started up, and then enters a read-only memory (ROM) boot operation, where the operation of the boot code performs confirmation of the validity of the authenticity data, as described in [0044]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the validity information is stored by storing the validity information in a storage area that can be written only once” (Nakata: [0046] describes how the authentication process is included in the ROM boot operation, which involves utilizing and storing the validity information).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the authenticity confirmation information is restricted from being updated by being stored in a storage area where erasing and writing of data are restricted” (Nakata: as described in [0044] and [0046], an authentication process is performed for the NVM device. Since this is performed within ROM, writing (i.e., updating) and erasing of data are restricted, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed using the second authenticity confirmation information, the validity information is not updated for invalidating the first authenticity confirmation information” (Yamaguchi: [0475, 0476] describe the verification process for verification data (i.e., authenticity confirmation information. Associated data [0060] is generated and accompanies the verification data. [0278] described how the associated data is not stored, so it does not overwrite other associated data)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, further comprises displaying information indicating that the first authenticity confirmation information cannot be invalidated as a response to the instruction for invalidating the first authenticity confirmation information to notify a user of the information” (Yamaguchi: [0259] describes how the communication unit receives various messages from the verification server devices, and then outputs these messages to the display unit (i.e., displaying information). The communication unit receives the program and its associated data (such as validity/invalidity information) from the distribution server and can output this information as well [0260]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the authenticity of the data cannot be confirmed using the second authenticity confirmation information, an operation state of the information processing apparatus is shifted to a predetermined state” (Nakata: [0079] describes how the state of the NVM device (represented by the FW state value, FW_state), can indicate the integrity (or lack therefore) of the NVM FW, which contains the authenticity confirmation information. If the NVM FW fails the integrity check, any access to the NVM device FW can be “locked out”, or disabled, which puts the device in a disabled state).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the predetermined state is a state in which execution of processing other than processing related to updating target data is restricted” (Yamaguchi: [0207 – 0209] describes the process of evaluating verification data to determine if it matches comparison data. In the event a match does not occur, remote control of a device in communication with the terminal device is stopped, which is an example of restriction of processing; in this case, the processing is related to startup processing, not updating target data).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nakata and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the authenticity of the data is confirmed using the second authenticity confirmation information, updating the validity information associated with the first authenticity confirmation information so that the first authenticity confirmation information is invalidated” (Nakata: [0081] describes how a digital signature can be generated “on-the-fly” (i.e., updated) in response to a hash value (code integrity value) being generated from the digital certificate, which replaces the prior digital certificate (which contains the code integrity value). Examiner sees the code check value of Nakata as equivalent to a validity information).
Claim 12 is a method claim that is drawn to the use of the apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the method claim 12 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is likewise rejected under the same reasoning of obviousness as stated above.
Claim 13 is a storage medium claim that is drawn to the use of the method claimed in claim 12. Therefore, the storage medium claim 13 corresponds to the method claim 12, and is likewise rejected under the same reasoning of obviousness as stated above.
Claims 14 – 20 are storage medium claims that are drawn to the use of the apparatus claimed in claims 2 – 7 and 9. Therefore, the storage medium claims 14 – 20 correspond to apparatus claims 2 – 7 and 9, and are likewise rejected under the same reasoning of obviousness as stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references present in PTO-892 are cited to further demonstrate the state of the art with respect to managing the startup processing of an apparatus in conjunction with its authenticity and validity of data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria C Rodriguez whose telephone number is (703)756-1827. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 - 17:00 Eastern.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached on (571)272-7624. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA C RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496