DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/518,606, filed on 8/10/2023.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite, “provide information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities” which is found indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim requires providing information to the computer system (e.g., transmitting data to the system) or providing information about the computer system (e.g., outputting a result indicating the system possesses the required capabilities). Based on the Specification paragraph [0028]-[0029], it appears the intended meaning is to provide an output or indication that the computer system successfully satisfies the profile. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “provide information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities” to be –provide information indicating the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities--.
Claim 10 recites “during a manufacturing process of manufacturing the computer system” which is found to be indefinite. Claim 10 is an apparatus claims, dependent on claim 5 that attempts to further limit the apparatus by reciting the processor circuity executes instructions “during a manufacturing process of manufacturing the computer system.” An apparatus claim must be distinguished from the prior art by its structural features, not by the environment in which it is used or the time at which it is operated. Reciting the instructions are executed “during a manufacturing process” is a method step and/or an intended use limitation that does not structurally define the apparatus. It is unclear if/how the claimed apparatus structurally differs from an identical computer system that executes the same instructions after the manufacturing process is complete. See MPEP 2173.05(p) regarding mixing statutory classes.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 depend on claims 1 and 1766 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-16 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), claims 17-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1 and 17 are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 17, recite the following steps/functions:
obtaining a profile of specified capabilities of the computer system;
comparing capabilities supported by the computer system with the profile of specified capabilities; and
providing information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities if the capabilities supported by the computer system satisfy the profile of specified capabilities. (Note: indicated in the 112(b) rejection above, “providing information on the computer system” is interpreted to be providing information about/indicating the computer system)
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of assessing/comparing capabilities supported by the computer system.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above recite concepts of collecting data (step A), analyzing data by comparing it with known reference (step B), and outputting a result based on the comparison (step C). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “apparatus for a computer system, the apparatus comprising interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions, and processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions to”;
Claim 20: “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a program code that, when the program code is executed on a processor, a computer, or a programmable hardware component, causes the processor, computer, or programmable hardware component to perform the method”;
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to obtain, compare, and provide information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at page 3 line 17 to page 4 line 16; page 20 line 1 to page 23 line 10) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[C] are steps of 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[C] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract concept. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-4 and 18-19, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims 1 and 17. The claims recite the profile is assigned during manufacturing… by a vendor; is specified for a computer platform; or is required to be allowed to advertise adherence with a computing platform brand. These are business rules, intended uses, and field of use limitations that generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological or commercial environment. Limiting the use of an abstract idea to a specific field of use does not integrate abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As for dependent claims 5-11, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim 1. These claims recite enabling or disabling capabilities (e.g., in a processor, microcode, firmware, or driver) based on the profile. Enabling or disabling a computer feature based on a comparison result is a conventional computer function. The claims merely instruct the practitioner to take the result of the abstract comparison and “apply it” by toggling a standard setting in the computer. This is a mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which does not constitute a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As for dependent claims 12-15, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim 1. These claims recite providing the information via a model-specific register; or via a cryptographic certificate of a hardware root of trust. The claims recite high-level of generality for use of generic hardware component using processor to provide information, store configuration data, use cryptographic technique to verify or attest data. These are mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As for dependent claims 16 and 20, these claims recite additional information regarding the apparatus and non-transitory, computer-readable medium to execute the instruction of the method. The additional elements are not changed and addressed as generic computer components at high-level of generality to perform the abstract idea. There is no claimed improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, nor is there a specific technical solution to a technological problem. The computer is merely used as generic tool to perform the abstract comparison.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raghuram et al. (US 20190272176 A1, hereinafter, “Raghuram”).
Claims 1 and 17, Raghuram discloses an apparatus and a method for a computer system (Raghuram: Abstract and Fig. 2), the apparatus comprising interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions, and processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions to (Fig. 1 and para. [0013]-[0014], processor, system memory, and instruction):
obtain a profile of specified capabilities of the computer system (para. [0019]-[0021] discloses accessing a BIOS storage that includes a plurality of fuse configuration profiles);
compare capabilities supported by the computer system with the profile of specified capabilities (para. [0024]-[0027] discloses the BIOS determining the hardware configuration of the computing device, specifically determining the chipset type (e.g., PCH type) and the central processing system type (e.g., CPU type), and selecting the appropriate fuse configuration profile based on this combination. Determining the hardware types present on the system and matching to a specific profile constitutes comparing supported capabilities with a profile of specified capabilities); and
provide information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities if the capabilities supported by the computer system satisfy the profile of specified capabilities (para. [0034], [0035], Raghuram discloses providing information indicating the system satisfies the profile. Raghuram discloses if the detected capabilities (PCH/CPU combination) are supported by the profile, the BIOS sends a command to program of burn or blow the hardware fuses in the chipset with the values defined by the profile. If the capabilities did not satisfy the profile (unsupported PCH/CPU combination), the BIOS execution is halted and an error message is displayed, which means the fuse information is provided if the capabilities satisfy the profile).
Claims 2 and 18, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 17. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the profile of specified capabilities is assigned to the computer system (para. [0021] discloses assigning the profile of specific capabilities (fuse configuration profile) to the computer system), during manufacturing of the computer system, by a vendor of the computer system (para. [0021], [0022], [0024], discloses the assignment/loading of profile into the computer system occurs during the manufacturing process. In para. [0004] and [0035] discloses the entity determining, providing, and loading of profile int the computer system during manufacturing is the manufacturer or original equipment manufacturer (OEM)).
Claims 3 and 19, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 17. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the profile of specified capabilities is specified for a computing platform (para. [0020], [0023], [0024] discloses the profile (fuse configuration profile) is specified for a particular computing platform. Under BRI, computing platform refers to specific hardware and/or software architecture framework of specific combination of a chipset and a processor), with the computer system being based on the computing platform if the capabilities supported by the computer system satisfy the profile of specified capabilities (para. [0033], [0034], disclosing the BIOS checks the actual hardware capabilities (PCH type and CPU type) of the computer system. If the capabilities match the combination required by the profile (i.e., if the capabilities satisfy the profile), the system is verified as being supported by the platform, and the platform-specific fuse programming is allowed to proceed).
Claim 5, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to enable or disable one or more capabilities of the computer system according to the profile of capabilities (para. [0034], “the BIOS 204 then provides the management engine 204 a an EOM HECI command that causes the management engine 204 a to configure (e.g., burn, blow, or otherwise program) the programmable fuses 206 a in the chipset/PCH 206 with the value defined by the fuse configuration profile that is located in the first fuse configuration profile region 308 a.” Para. [0035], “the programmable fuses 206 a may be programmed to enable features in the computing device 200 such as, for example, BOOT GUARD available in systems provided by DELL® Inc. of Round Rock, Tex., United States, PLATFORM TRUST TECHNOLOGY available from INTEL® corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., United States, as well as Innovation Engine (an INTEL® processor embedded into the PCH for Outside Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to run cryptographically signed OEM firmware for applications such as platform management functions similar to the INTEL® management engine, offloading BIOS routines, etc.), flash descriptor verification, and/or other features known in the art.” Discloses the enable features by fuse programming such as security features, cryptographic offloading, and trust technologies, constitutes capabilities of the computer system).
Claim 6, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to enable or disable one or more capabilities of a processor of the computer system according to the profile of capabilities (para. [0034], [0035], “the programmable fuses 206 a may be programmed to enable features in the computing device 200 such as, for example, BOOT GUARD available in systems provided by DELL® Inc. of Round Rock, Tex., United States, PLATFORM TRUST TECHNOLOGY available from INTEL® corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., United States, as well as Innovation Engine (an INTEL® processor embedded into the PCH for Outside Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to run cryptographically signed OEM firmware for applications such as platform management functions similar to the INTEL® management engine, offloading BIOS routines, etc.), flash descriptor verification, and/or other features known in the art.” Raghuram discloses the execution of the instructions to program the hardware fuses directly enables capabilities of a processor within the computer system. Raghuram explicitly identifies the “Innovation Engine” as a processor is enabled).
Claim 8, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to enable or disable one or more capabilities of a firmware of the computer system according to the profile of capabilities (para. [0035], “run cryptographically signed OEM firmware for applications such as platform management functions similar to the INTEL® management engine, offloading BIOS routines, etc.), flash descriptor verification, and/or other features known in the art.” BIOS is firmware and OEM firmware running on the embedded processor).
Claim 10, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to obtain the profile of specified capabilities during a manufacturing process of manufacturing the computer system (para. [0021], [0022], [0024], discloses the assignment/loading of profile into the computer system occurs during the manufacturing process), and to enable or disable the one or more capabilities of the computer system according to the profile of capabilities during the manufacturing process of manufacturing the computer system (para. [0022], “such systems and methods may provide for End of Manufacturing (EOM) operations that use Host Embedded Controller Interface (HECI) EOM commands issued by the BIOS/management engine at Power On Self Test (POST) during a first boot of the computing device,” Para. [0034], “the programming of the programmable fuses 206 a is completed, the BIOS 204 determines that the manufacturing flow has been completed and verifies that the programmable fuses 206 a have been configured to the expected values.”).
Claim 11, Raghuram discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the one or more capabilities include at least one of a capability related to a trusted execution environment, a capability related to remote management of the computer system, a capability related to trusted device setup, and a capability related to computer system security (para. [0003], “Programmable (IFP) fuses that may be burned during manufacture to provide security information in the chipset (e.g., information associated with a public key such as a hash of a master public key) and/or enable particular features in the system…. features enabled in the information handling system in such a manner may include security features such as, for example, BOOT GUARD available in systems provided by DELL® Inc.” and [0035], “programmable fuses 206 a may be programmed to include security information provided in the chipset 206 such as a public key or hash thereof, which may be utilized to verify software or firmware that has been signed with an associated private key. Similarly, the programmable fuses 206 a may be programmed to enable features in the computing device 200 such as, for example, BOOT GUARD available in systems provided by DELL® Inc. of Round Rock, Tex., United States, PLATFORM TRUST TECHNOLOGY available from INTEL® corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., United States, as well as Innovation Engine (an INTEL® processor embedded into the PCH for Outside Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to run cryptographically signed OEM firmware for applications such as platform management functions similar to the INTEL® management engine,”) .
Claim 16, Raghuram discloses a computer system comprising the apparatus according to claim 1 (Abstract and Fig. 2, computing device 200).
Claim 20, Raghuram discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a program code that, when the program code is executed on a processor, a computer, or a programmable hardware component, causes the processor, computer, or programmable hardware component to perform the method of claim 17 (Fig. 1 and para. [0013]-[0014]).
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 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuram et al. (US 20190272176 A1, hereinafter, “Raghuram”) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter, “AAPA”).
Claim 4, Raghuram discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the profile of specified capabilities specifies the capabilities required by a computer system to be allowed to advertise adherence with a computing platform brand (Para. [0003], “enable particular features in the system. For example, security information provided in the chipset in such a manner and associated with a public key may be utilized to verify software or firmware (e.g., a Basic Input/Output System (BIOS)) that has been signed with an associated private key. Similarly, features enabled in the information handling system in such a manner may include security features such as, for example, BOOT GUARD available in systems provided by DELL® Inc. of Round Rock, Tex., United States, and PLATFORM TRUST TECHNOLOGY available from INTEL® corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., United States. Providing chipsets with information and enabling system features in such manner provides a root of trust for that information and those features” and para. [0035], “ the programmable fuses 206 a may be programmed to enable features in the computing device 200 such as, for example, BOOT GUARD available in systems provided by DELL® Inc. of Round Rock, Tex., United States, PLATFORM TRUST TECHNOLOGY available from INTEL® corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., United States, as well as Innovation Engine (an INTEL® processor embedded into the PCH for Outside Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to run cryptographically signed OEM firmware for applications such as platform management functions similar to the INTEL® management engine, offloading BIOS routines, etc.), flash descriptor verification, and/or other features known in the art.” Raghuram discloses the fuse configuration profile specifies the capabilities and features required to be enabled on the computer system with branded platform technologies.
Raghuram discloses the enabling of branded platform features, however, does not explicitly anticipate the limitation of “to be allowed to advertise adherence with a computing platform brand”.
However, the limitation is rendered obvious by AAPA.
Applicant admis in the Specification, page 1 lines 6-8, “On computing platforms, such as the Intel® vPro® platform, it may be considered difficult to determine which capabilities exist on which platform models across OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers).” Page 6, lines 4-6, “To aid in the selection of computer systems, platform vendors, such as Intel®, have created branded platform profiles, which generally specify a minimum selection of capabilities that have to be supported to match the branded platform profile.” That computing platforms associated with specific brands (e.g., Intel® vPro® platform) exists, and brands dictate a specific set of capabilities that a system must support to adhere to the platform.
Further, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “to be allowed to advertise adherence” is a statement of intended use, business rule, or marketing agreement between a vendor and an OEM. The limitation does not impose any structural or functional limitations on the claimed apparatus. An apparatus configures a system to meet a specific capability profile is structurally identical regardless of whether the manufacturer is legally “allowed to advertise” a brand logo on the box. In accordance with MPEP 2111.02(II) intended use and MPEP 2111.05 Printed Matter, non-functional intended use and business rule do not patentably distinguish an apparatus from the prior art. Raghuram’s apparatus is fully capable of configuring a system to meet a branded profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to apply the automated BIOS based profile configuration system of Raghuram to enforce the minimum capability requirements of a “computing platform brand” as admitted by the Applicant Admitted Prior Art, with the motivation of ensuring the manufactured computer system accurately and automatically enables the specific hardware features (e.g., PLATFORM TRUST TECHNOLOGY available from INTEL® corporation) required by the platform vendor (e.g., Intel), to solve the known problem of misconfigured End of Manufacturing fuse burning (Raghuram para. [0004]-[0005]) and ensures the OEM successfully meets the brand’s technical requirements, thereby allowing the OEM to successfully market and advertise the computer system under the computing platform brand.
Claims 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuram et al. (US 20190272176 A1, hereinafter, “Raghuram”) in view of Weissmann et al. (US 20150355705 A1, hereinafter, “Weissmann”).
Claim 7, Raghuram discloses the apparatus according to claim 6. Raghuram further discloses,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to enable or disable the one or more capabilities of the processor (para. [0034], [0035] discloses enabling capabilities of a processor (embedded Innovation Engine) based on the fuse configuration profile).
However, Raghuram does not explicitly teach, via a microcode of the processor.
Nonetheless, Weissmann is in similar field processor management, which specifically teaches, via a microcode of the processor (para. [0041], “a processor-initiated forced idle operation implements a flow of control from hardware firmware having power and performance control heuristics, into the core and micro-code that executes an OS-initiated low power state entry. In turn, exit from the forced idle state follows a similar flow starting at hardware firmware, which causes the core to wakeup. The micro-code then resumes a regular execution flow.” Para. [0048], “OPD handling logic 228 may communicate a trigger command to microcode 236 associated with a first hardware thread (and/or microcode 236 1 associated with a second hardware thread) such that the corresponding hardware thread is to enter into a forced idle state. Note that this microcode-initiated entry into the low power state may be implemented using an available low power microcode…” teaches enabling or disabling specific capabilities of a processor (e.g., Hardware Duty Cycling (HDC) and forced idle states) via a microcode of the processor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Raghuram to implement the capability enablement of processor features based on profile using the microcode execution mechanism as taught by Weissmann for the motivation of providing fine-grained, runtime architectural control over the processor’s features without requiring physical hardware changes beyond the initial fuse bur, as taught by Wissmann, by utilizing microcode allows the processor to securely and efficiently transition states or enable/disable specific execution capacities as dictated by the system’s configuration profile.
Claim 9, Raghuram discloses the apparatus according to claim 5.
Raghuram fails to expressly teach,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to enable or disable one or more capabilities of a driver or application software according to the profile of capabilities.
Nonetheless, Weissmann is in similar field processor management, which specifically teaches,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to enable or disable one or more capabilities of a driver or application software according to the profile of capabilities (para. [0027], “HDC may be enabled with full control by the OS such that the OS can dynamically enable or disable HDC. In an embodiment, system BIOS selects the mode of HDC control operation during boot. In case HDC is controlled by the OS, hardware may enumerate capabilities for HDC operation. The OS in turn may ensure that HDC is supported on the given processor and then enable HDC.” Para. [0074], “Another method to realize unified HDC operation is to include a control logic to monitor that the OS (e.g., by a driver operating according to OS-based heuristics) can enter into idle states by itself.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Raghuram’s BIOS-based profile configuration system to include OS/driver capability based on hardware profile as taught by Weissmann for the motivation of allowing both low-level hardware fuse and high-level software (OS driver) to be cooperatively tailored to the system’s specific hardware profile, thereby optimizing system performance, security, and power management across the entire computing stack.
Claim 12, Raghuram discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Raghuram further discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to provide the information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities (providing capability information to the system physically via blown fuses and further discloses reading a Model Specific Register (MSR) to determine the initial CPU type, as indicated in para. [0025], “reading the appropriate CPU Model Specific Register (CPU MSR)”. Also see para. [0034], [0035]).
However, Raghuram does not explicitly disclose the result of providing information satisfying the profile of specified capabilities via a model-specific register of a processor of the computer system.
Nonetheless, Weissmann is in similar field processor management, which specifically teaches,
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to provide the information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities via a model-specific register of a processor of the computer system (para. [0037], [0038]) teaches providing information regarding processor capabilities, enable/disable states, and hardware configurations via a model-specific register of a processor of the computer system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Raghuram’s BIOS-based profile configuration system to include the use of Model-Specific Registers to provide information about the system’s enabled capabilities as taught by Weissmann for the motivation of making the hardware configuration visible as an architectural feature to the operating system and higher-level software, as explicitly described in Weissmann (para. [0038]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuram et al. (US 20190272176 A1, hereinafter, “Raghuram”) in view of Block et al. (US 20200099536 A1, hereinafter, “Block”).
Claim 13, Raghuram discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Raghuram further discloses
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to provide the information on the computer system satisfying the profile of specified capabilities (para. [0034], [0035]).
Raghuram fails to explicitly teach, via a cryptographic certificate attesting that the computer system satisfies the profile of specified capabilities.
However, Block teaches via a cryptographic certificate attesting that the computer system satisfies the profile of specified capabilities (para. [0008], [0028], [0123], Block teaches providing information regarding a computer system’s configuration and capabilities via a cryptographic certificate (e.g., a signed attestation quote and an Attestation Key (AK) certificate) that attests to the computer system’s hardware and software configuration is authentic, expected, and unmodified (i.e., satisfies a specified profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Raghuram Raghuram’s BIOS-based profile configuration system to include cryptographic certificate attestation mechanism as taught by Block for the motivation of providing a secure, verifiable method for the computer system to prove to external entities that it was properly configured during manufacturing and protect against “spoofing (node impersonation…) and tampering” (para. [0006], [0120]).
Claim 14, the combination of Raghuram and Block makes obvious of the apparatus according to claim 13. Block further teaches
wherein the certificate is a certificate of a hardware root of trust certificate chain (para. [0004], [0031], [0032], [0036]. Block discloses root endorsement key signing an EK certificate, which linked to the generating/signing of an attestation key certificate by hardware TPM). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Raghuram with/and the teachings of Block are presented in the examining of independent claim 13 and incorporated herein.
Claim 15, the combination of Raghuram and Block makes obvious of the apparatus according to claim 13. Block further teaches
wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to provide the cryptographic certificate to a remote entity (para. [0004], [0116], [0121], [0123]). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Raghuram with/and the teachings of Block are presented in the examining of independent claim 13 and incorporated herein.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
N. Asokan et al., "Mobile Trusted Computing," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 1189-1206, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2014.2332007 teaches trusted computing technologies for mobile devices that further teaches remote attestation for external verifiable statement about the software configuration running on a device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights