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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12-15 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 4-6, 10-11 and 16-18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-15 and 19-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argument that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection should be withdrawn due to claim amendments is not persuasive because the amendments do not overcome the previous 112(b) rejection and introduces new issue (see 112(b) rejection section below).
Applicant argument that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection should be withdrawn due to claim amendment is not persuasive because the amendments do not overcome the previous 101 rejection and introduces new issue (see 101 rejection section below).
Applicant’s arguments see Remarks filed on 06/29/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections.
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, 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, 9, 12-13 and 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 Chen et al. (US 2021/0119807), hereinafter Chen in view of Haridas et al. (US 2017/0359171), hereinafter Haridas.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakata discloses “An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing a program configured to be executed by the information processing apparatus, (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]);
a first public key corresponding to a first signature associated with the program,
a second public key corresponding to a second signature associated with the program, and validity information indicating whether the first public key is valid; (Nakata: [0064]-[0068], [0076]-[0081], 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, the signature verification with stored public key); and
“at least one processor configured to:” (Nakata: [0033] describes how the NVM processor executes stored instructions (i.e., programs));
“receive a revocation instruction for the first public key” (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]);
“perform, using [[the second public key that is different from the first public key]], a signature verification process for verifying the second signature associated with the program;” (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, the signature verification with stored public key);
Nakata discloses the above subject matter content, but fails to expressly disclose, however, Chen in analogous art discloses “a second public key corresponding to a second signature associated with the program; and verifying using the second public key that is different from the first public key” (para. [0034], [0062]-[0066], [0073], When blockchain account migrate transaction 206 is processed … if not processed (invalid signatures), the migration (and deprecation) does not occur … lock times, verification steps and that invalid/missing signatures prevent processing (i.e. the negative branch (do not invalidate if verification fails) in embodiments requiring signature verification before migration; When a migration transaction that includes or requires a new key signature is validated, deprecation/invalidation of the old account/key: “When blockchain account migrate transaction 206 is processed, the first blockchain account 208 may be considered a deprecated account. Deprecated accounts may have certain properties… the private keys of deprecated accounts may no longer be used on the blockchain and any transactions signed with those keys are rejected.” The migration processing requires valid signature(s) as noted above. (i.e. invalidating/deprecating the old public key upon successful processing (which relies on successful signature verification in the embodiments that require the new key signature)).
Therefore, based on Nakata in view of Chen, 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 Chen to the system of Nakata in order to provide a conditional migration/revocation logic and necessity of verifying a new key signature before deprecating an old key. (see para. [0066], Chen)
Nakata in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, however, Haridas in analogous art, however, discloses “in response to receiving the revocation instruction for the first public key, update the validity information from information indicating that the first public key is valid to information indicating that the first public key is invalid when the second signature is successfully verified through the signature verification process, using the second public key, and maintain the validity information as information indicating that the first public key is valid when the second signature is not successfully verified through the signature verification process using the second public key” (see para. [0029]-[0031],[0067]-[0072], primary public key, the secondary public key, and the secondary public key's signature generated using the primary secret key (SPK.sig) are stored locally on the build machine 302. In this process, it is assumed that the bootloader includes two executable partitions (FSBL and SSBL) and a key revocation list, [0076] The signed bootloader could be assembled using the primary public key, the secondary public key, the secondary public key's signature generated using the primary secret key (SPK.sig), the ELF files (fsbl.elf and ssbl.elf), the key revocation list (krl.bin), and the signatures (ImageHeader.sig, fsbl.sig, ssbl.sig, and krl.sig). In some embodiments, the signatures are placed inside the authentication certificates of the image header and the individual partitions, [0112]-[0114], revoking a tertiary public key according … a tertiary public key is revoked by calling a function of the key management service at step 1002. This could include, for example, the processor 202 of the build machine 302 sending a request identifying a specific tertiary public key to the key management service 306. The request causes the key management service 306 to revoke the tertiary public key and mark it as such in the key management service's database at step 1004. This also causes the key management service 306 to add the tertiary public key to a new key revocation list, which is published to the build machine at step 1006, Note when a key is revoked, it is marked as revoked and added to KRL and verified keys remain trusted and unrevoked keys remail usable).
Therefore, based on Nakata in view of Chen, 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 Haridas to the system of Nakata and Chen in order to provide securely booting a device and executing one or more kernel or user applications using the device, where the one or more kernel or user applications are digitally signed using one or more second cryptographic keys associated with the one or more kernel or user applications. (see Abstract, Haridas)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nakata and Chen and Haridas further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when the second signature associated with the program is not successfully verified, an operation state of the information processing apparatus is shifted to a predetermined state that execution of processing other than processing related to updating target data is restricted” (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).
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 non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that is drawn to the system claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the storage medium claim 13 corresponds to the system claim 1, and is likewise rejected under the same reasoning of obviousness as stated above.
Claim 20 recites limitations substantially similar to claim 9, therefore, is also rejected under the same rationale to claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7-8, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al (US 2022/0108016 A1), hereinafter Nakata, in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0119807), hereinafter Chen in view of Haridas et al. (US 2017/0359171), hereinafter Haridas in view of Yamaguchi et al (US 2014/0196134 A1), hereinafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nakata and Chen and Haridas further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform startup processing for the information processing apparatus in parallel with the separate signature verification process; (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 separate signature different from the signature verification process performed in response to the revocation instruction, wherein the separate signature verification process is a process for verifying the first signature associated with the program using the first public key and for verifying the second signature associated with the program using the second public key; (Haridas, para. [0112]-[0114], revoking a tertiary public key according … a tertiary public key is revoked by calling a function of the key management service at step 1002. This could include, for example, the processor 202 of the build machine 302 sending a request identifying a specific tertiary public key to the key management service 306. The request causes the key management service 306 to revoke the tertiary public key and mark it as such in the key management service's database at step 1004. This also causes the key management service 306 to add the tertiary public key to a new key revocation list, which is published to the build machine at step 1006, Note when a key is revoked, it is marked as revoked and added to KRL and verified keys remain trusted and unrevoked keys remail usable)
Nakata and Chen and Haridas do not explicitly disclose, however, Yamaguchi discloses restrict the startup processing when the first signature associated with the program and the second signature associated with the program are not successfully verified through separate signature. (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). Therefore, based on Nakata and Chen and Haridas 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 and Chen in order to provide a verification method for verifying the validity of an executed program (Yamaguchi, [0006]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakata, Chen, Haridas and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to stop the startup processing when the first signature associated with the program and the second signature associated with the program are not successfully verified through the separate signature verification process.” (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); Haridas, para. [0112]-[0114], revoking a tertiary public key according … a tertiary public key is revoked by calling a function of the key management service at step 1002. This could include, for example, the processor 202 of the build machine 302 sending a request identifying a specific tertiary public key to the key management service 306). Same rationale as claim 2 above applies.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nakata and Chen and Haridas discloses the system of claim 1. Both references do not explicitly disclose, however, Yamaguchi discloses discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the second signature associated with the program not successfully verified, the at least one processor does invalidate the first public key and a predetermined notification destination of information is notified for indicating the first public key cannot be invalidated as a response to the received revocation instruction for public key” (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). Similar motivation as claim 2 above applies.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nakata, Chen, Haridas and Yamaguchi further discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to display information indicating the first public key cannot be invalidated as a response to the received revocation instruction for the first-public key 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]). Similar motivation as claim 2 above applies.
Claims 14-15 and 19 are storage medium claims that are drawn to the use of the apparatus claimed in claims 2–3 and 7. Therefore, the storage medium claims14-15 and 19 correspond to apparatus claims 2 – 3 and 7, 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.
Ito (US 20230351029) directed to managing a plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information used to confirm authenticity of data, managing validity information indicating whether each of the plurality of pieces of authenticity confirmation information is valid, and confirming the authenticity of the data using the authenticity confirmation information to be indicated as valid with the validity information, 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, update the validity information associated with the first authenticity confirmation information.
Yamaguchi (US 8850186 ) directed to printing device 110 is capable of using public key encryption to generate and maintain a private key and a public key to be used for such operations as authentication, encryption, and providing a digital signature. It is further possible for the printing device 110 to generate and submit a Certificate Signing Request (CSR) containing the host identification information and the public key, to the server apparatus 120 that executes a certificate authority service, or CA service, and obtain and maintain the electronic certificate that is issued by the server apparatus 120 in response to the CSR. It is additionally possible for the printing device 110 to transmit to the server apparatus 120 a revocation notification, either for the purpose of invalidating a CSR, or for the purpose of revoking an electronic certificate once it has been issued.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shewaye Gelagay whose telephone number is (571)272-4219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 A.M. - 4 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, Amy C. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-2238. 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.
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights