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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed on 01/14/2026. The applicant amended claims 1, 2, 6, 8-13, and 16-20 are amended. Claims 21, and 22 were added. Claims 5 and 15 are cancelled.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections:
Applicant’ claim amendments and remarks filed on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered and overcame the 112(b) rejection as presented in the final office action filed 11/07/2025. Therefore, rejection have been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections:
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/14/2026 have been received and entered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly amended independent claims, see Applicant Arguments 11-12, with respect to the rejection (s) of independent claims 1,12 and 19 have been fully considered and overcame the claim rejections as presented in the final office action filed 02/05//2026. Therefore, Rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1 and 12, Claim 1, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the first list of commands in the command filter register to cause blocking” and “the second list of commands in the command filter blocks or permit access”. Similarly, claim 12 recites that the command filter blocks or permits access based on the first and second list of commands. For clarity, the claims should be amended to expressly state that the command filter blacks or permits commands based on comparing received commands to the respective list stored in the command filter register. The list itself does not perform the blocking or permitting, rather the command filter performs the blocking or permitting based on the list. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 19, Claims 1, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, 12, and 19 recite “based on the determined likelihood not exceeding a threshold, reset the command filter register”. For clarity and proper grammatical form, the phrase should be amended to recite “in response to determining that the determined likelihood not exceeding a threshold, reset the command filter register.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 11, 17, 21, and 22 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 11 recites that “command filter is to selectively allow or disallow access to the nonvolatile memory using a list of disapproved commands”, and further recites that “the first list of commands is a list of disapproved commands, and the second list of commands excludes commands in the first list of commands.” However, the claim does not clearly state whether the second list of commands is also list of disapproved commands. As written, it is unclear how the second list operates to allow or disallow access, and whether excluding commands from the first list means that the second list is a modified disapproved command list or different type of command list. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claim. Same applies for claim 21 and 22. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a second nonvolatile memory; a second controller for the nonvolatile memory”. However, claim 17 previously recites that “the nonvolatile memory” in “a second controller for the nonvolatile memory” appears to refer back to the first nonvolatile memory. This creates ambiguity because claim 17 later recites that the security processor programs a second command filter in the second controller” to block commands to access the second nonvolatile memory”. Thus, it is unclear whether the second controller is a controller for the first nonvolatile memory or for the second nonvolatile memory. Examiner suggest to clarify the scope of the claim. Furthermore, Claim 17 recites “in response to the determined likelihood, determine whether to trigger an erase of the second nonvolatile memory”. The phrase “in response to the determined likelihood” fails to clearly define what condition or relationship involving the likelihood causes the determination of whether the determination of whether to trigger the erase. It is unclear whether the determination is based on the likelihood exceeding threshold, not exceeding a threshold, satisfying criterion, or some other conditions. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claim. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11, and 17 -18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art:-
Leon (US 20120185636 A1) describes a high capacity, secure, tamper resistant memory device. It uses multiple memory controllers connected to an antitamper module that can respond to detected tampering by erasing memory contents or encryption keys. The device may use a stacked configuration with rerouted I/O connections to conceal its operation, control, data transfers, negotiate power requirements with a host, and operate as part of a portable secure computing device.
Som (US 20200257460 A1) describes a security system for controlling access to a computer memory device. Each memory access command and its attributes are checked against an approved command list. If authenticated, the command is further evaluated using usage and behavior rules to detect unauthorized or malicious activity. The command is executed only when no rule violation is found.
Regarding claim 1: However, each of the cited references or references from the updated searches, either alone or in combination, at least, fails to teach or suggest the limitations regarding “detect a potential attack in the system in response to detecting the potential attack in the system, writing a command filter register with a first list of commands, the first list of commands in the command filter register to cause blocking, by a command filter, of received commands to access a nonvolatile memory based on comparing the received commands to the first list of commands; determine, based on monitored information from one or more sensors, a likelihood of the potential attack being a real attack; and based on the determined likelihood not exceeding a threshold, reset the command filter register by writing the command filter register with a second list of commands different from the first list of commands, the second list of commands in the command filter register to cause the command filter to permit access of the nonvolatile memory based on comparing further received commands to the second list of commands.” in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in the independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: However, each of the cited references or references from the updated searches, either alone or in combination, at least, fails to teach or suggest the limitations regarding “detect a potential attack in the system in response to detecting the potential attack in the system, writing a command filter register with a first list of commands, the first list of commands in the command filter register to cause blocking, by a command filter, of received commands to access a nonvolatile memory based on comparing the received commands to the first list of commands; determine, based on monitored information from one or more sensors, a likelihood of the potential attack being a real attack; and based on the determined likelihood not exceeding a threshold, reset the command filter register by writing the command filter register with a second list of commands different from the first list of commands, the second list of commands in the command filter register to cause the command filter to permit access of the nonvolatile memory based on comparing further received commands to the second list of commands” in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in the independent claim 12.
Regarding claim 19: However, each of the cited references or references from the updated searches, either alone or in combination, at least, fails to teach or suggest the limitations regarding “detect a potential attack in the system in response to detecting the potential attack in the system, writing a command filter register with a first list of commands, the first list of commands in the command filter register to cause blocking, by a command filter, of received commands to access a nonvolatile memory based on comparing the received commands to the first list of commands; determine, based on monitored information from one or more sensors, a likelihood of the potential attack being a real attack; and based on the determined likelihood not exceeding a threshold, reset the command filter register by writing the command filter register with a second list of commands different from the first list of commands, the second list of commands in the command filter register to cause the command filter to permit access of the nonvolatile memory based on comparing further received commands to the second list of commands” in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in the independent claim 19.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-11, depend to the allowed claim 1, and therefore, they are also allowed.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16-18, depend to the allowed claim 12, and therefore, they are also allowed.
Regarding claims 20-22, depend to the allowed claim 19, and therefore, they are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180336351 A1: “relates to monitoring resource access by an application running in a container that is isolated from the host operating system”
US 20190324923 A1: “relates to an interface filter that is interposed between the processor and the flash memory to enhance the security and validity of data transactions associated with the processor and the flash memory”
US 20200097192 A1: “relates to implementing software filtered non-volatile memory in a computing device”.
US 20200257460 A1: “relates to securing a memory device of a computing system in which a memory access command is compared to each command in a list of commands”.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIKSHYA POUDEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1540. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon- Fri.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/S.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2436 /SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights