DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 20 January 2026. They have been fully considered but they are not sufficient to place the claims in condition for allowance. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections set forth in the prior Office Action, with the exception of the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which has not been amended to address the original rejection. However, the amendments have also necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 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 has been amended to recite the distributed BIOS “being implemented to function with any of a plurality of processor environments, each of the plurality of processing environments implementing a respective processor architecture”. The specification as originally filed fails to provide support for this amendment. While the specification teaches that that the distributed BIOS functions with a plurality of processor environments [para. 0030], it fails to explicitly identify these different processor environments as processor architectures. The specification elsewhere discloses a processor environment comprising processors of the same or differing architectures [para. 0033], and also discloses that various information handling systems may utilize different processors that require a BIOS specific to their architecture [para. 0049]. But the specification fails to explicitly relate these teachings to a plurality of processor environments implementing a respective architecture.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected on the same basis.
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. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of processing environments” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 provides an original recitation of “a plurality of processor environments” in line 5.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a plurality of processor environments” in line 9. This limitation is indefinite because there is already an original recitation of a plurality of processor environments in line 5.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 18 recites "the processor environment agnostic seamless secure layer" in line 2 and "the operation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior original recitation of a processor environment agnostic seamless secure layer or an operation in the claim or its parent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liao et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0080752, discloses a BIOS that performs different branch processing according to different processor architecture [para. 0005].
Bulusu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0129795, discloses a system that stores different BIOS boot blocks that are compatible with different processor architectures [para. 0021].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI H BAE whose telephone number is (571)272-7181. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Friday and every other Monday, 9 am to 6 pm.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/JI H BAE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Phone: 571-272-7181
Fax: 571-273-7181
ji.bae@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights