DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to an amendment filed 1/27/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive based on new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dent (US PG Pub. 2002/0066039) in view of Hu (US Patent 10,432,405).
As regarding claim 1, Dent discloses A computer-implemented method (CIM), comprising:
initiating, by an operating system and based at least in part on information received from an application, a single task mode [para. 39 and 43; upon receiving data, from the password entry application, initiating a single task mode which allows the password entry application to be active], wherein the single task mode is configured to:
suspend all programs and subsystems running on a computer [para. 43; suspending or freezing all other applications],
reactivate a subset of the suspended programs and subsystems, wherein the subset enables completion of a sensitive task [para. 43; activating the password entry task],
cause a dedicated single task mode scheduler to schedule the sensitive task using the reactivated subset of the programs and subsystems [para. 43; scheduling the password entry task to be completed], and
cause the sensitive task to be completed [para. 43; completing the password entry task]; and
ending, by the operating system and based at least in part on additional information received from the application, the single task mode [para. 43; restoring the suspended applications after completing the password entry task],
Dent does not explicitly disclose that the scheduler is configured to verify a cryptographic signature created by cryptographical signing. However, Hu discloses it [col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Dent’s scheduler to further comprise Hu’s scheduler for performing cryptographic signature operation.
As regarding claim 2, Dent further discloses The CIM of claim 1, wherein the ending of the single task mode includes: causing schedule control to be returned from the dedicated single task mode scheduler to a normal scheduler; and reactivating any ones of the programs and/or subsystems that remain suspended [para. 43; restoring the suspended applications after completing the password entry task].
As regarding claim 3, Dent further discloses The CIM of claim 1, wherein the sensitive task is susceptible to cyberattack, wherein the sensitive task includes a password authentication [para. 43; password authentication task].
As regarding claim 4, Dent further discloses The CIM of claim 1, wherein the single task mode is further configured to: send a first notification to a user in response to the single task mode being initiated [para. 39 and 43; displaying the password entry screen]; and sending a second notification to the user in response to the sensitive task being completed [para. 43; removing the password entry screen after completing the password entry task].
As regarding claim 8, Dent further discloses The CIM of claim 1, wherein the single task mode is further configured to: encrypt an output produced in response to the sensitive task being completed [para. 38-39; performing encryption of data after completing the password task].
As regarding claim 10, Dent discloses A computer program product (CPP), comprising:
a set of one or more computer-readable storage media [para. 17 and 19-20]; and
program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing a processor set to perform the following computer operations [para. 17 and 19-20]:
initiate, based at least in part on information received from an application, a single task mode [para. 39 and 43; upon receiving data, from the password entry application, initiating a single task mode which allows the password entry application to be active], wherein the single task mode is configured to:
suspend all programs and subsystems running on a computer [para. 43; suspending or freezing all other applications],
reactivate a subset of the suspended programs and subsystems, wherein the subset enables completion of a sensitive task [para. 43; activating the password entry task],
cause a dedicated single task mode scheduler to schedule the sensitive task using the reactivated subset of the programs and subsystems [para. 43; scheduling the password entry task to be completed], and
cause the sensitive task to be completed [para. 43; completing the password entry task]; and
end, based at least in part on additional information received from the application, the single task mode.
Dent does not explicitly disclose that the scheduler is configured to verify a cryptographic signature created by cryptographical signing. However, Hu discloses it [col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Dent’s scheduler to further comprise Hu’s scheduler for performing cryptographic signature operation.
As regarding claim 11, Dent further discloses The CPP of claim 10, wherein the ending of the single task mode includes: causing schedule control to be returned from the dedicated single task mode scheduler to a normal scheduler; and reactivating any ones of the programs and/or subsystems that remain suspended [para. 43; restoring the suspended applications after completing the password entry task].
As regarding claim 12, Dent further discloses The CPP of claim 10, wherein the sensitive task is susceptible to cyberattack, wherein the sensitive task includes a password authentication [para. 43; password authentication task].
As regarding claim 13, Dent further discloses The CPP of claim 10, wherein the single task mode is further configured to: send a first notification to a user in response to the single task mode being initiated [para. 39 and 43; displaying the password entry screen]; and sending a second notification to the user in response to the sensitive task being completed [para. 43; removing the password entry screen after completing the password entry task].
As regarding claim 17, Dent further discloses The CPP of claim 10, wherein the single task mode is further configured to: encrypt an output produced in response to the sensitive task being completed [para. 38-39; performing encryption of data after completing the password task].
As regarding claim 19, Dent discloses A computer system (CS), comprising:
a processor set [para. 17 and 19-20];
a set of one or more computer-readable storage media [para. 17 and 19-20];
program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more computer-readable storage media, for causing the processor set to perform the following computer operations [para. 17 and 19-20]:
in response to a single task mode being initiated based at least in part on information received from an application [para. 39 and 43; upon receiving data, from the password entry application, initiating a single task mode which allows the password entry application to be active]:
suspending all programs and subsystems running on a computer [para. 43; suspending or freezing all other applications];
reactivating a subset of the suspended programs and subsystems, wherein the subset enables completion of a sensitive task [para. 43; activating the password entry task];
using a dedicated single task mode scheduler to schedule the sensitive task based at least in part on the reactivated subset of the programs and subsystems [para. 43; scheduling the password entry task to be completed],
completing the sensitive task [para. 43; completing the password entry task]; and
causing the single task mode to end in response to the sensitive task being completed [para. 43; restoring the suspended applications after completing the password entry task].
Dent does not explicitly disclose that the scheduler is configured to verify a cryptographic signature created by cryptographical signing. However, Hu discloses it [col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Dent’s scheduler to further comprise Hu’s scheduler for performing cryptographic signature operation.
7. Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dent (US PG Pub. 2002/0066039) in view of Hu (US Patent 10,432,405) and further in view of Yamaguchi (US PG Pub. 2021/0192014).
As regarding claims 5 and 14, Dent and Hu disclose The CIM of claim 1, wherein the reactivating of the subset of the suspended programs and subsystems includes, for each of the programs and/or subsystems in the subset: identifying a signature correlated with a given one of the programs and/or subsystems in the subset [Dent para. 43; restoring the suspended applications in accordance with the saved status]. Dent and Hu do not explicitly disclose verifying the identified signature; however, Yamaguchi discloses it [para. 62-63; verifying signature].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Dent and Hu’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Yamaguchi, to ensure that the program associated with the signature has not been tampered with before being executed or activated [Yamaguchi para. 3].
As regarding claims 6 and 15, Dent, Hu and Yamaguchi further disclose The CIM of claim 5, wherein the reactivating of the subset of the suspended programs and subsystems further includes: in response to determining the identified signature cannot be verified, denying activation of the given one of the programs and/or subsystems in the subset [Yamaguchi para. 64].
As regarding claims 7 and 16, Dent, Hu and Yamaguchi further disclose The CIM of claim 5, wherein the reactivating of the subset of the suspended programs and subsystems further includes: in response to verifying the identified signature, approving activation of the given one of the programs and/or subsystems in the subset [Yamaguchi para. 65].
8. Claims 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dent (US PG Pub. 2002/0066039) in view of Hu (US Patent 10,432,405) further in view of Coombs (US PG Pub. 2008/0025515).
As regarding claims 9, 18 and 20, Dent and Hu disclose updating a configuration of the single task mode based at least in part on inputs received from a user [Dent para. 30; during the initialization, saving the input user password in the security module 100];
Dent and Hu do not explicitly disclose cryptographically signing the updates; however, Coombs discloses it [para. 4; digitally-signing software updates].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Dent and Hu’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Coombs, to ensure that software updates are allowed only when verification digital signature is successful [Coombs para. 22].
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights