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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/04/2024. Claims 1-13 and 19-25 are pending in this application while claims 14-18 are canceled. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-13 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 19 and 20 similarly recite “a method for monitoring a BootLoader startup procedure, comprising: obtaining execution process information of a target function module included in a BootLoader in a start process of a BootLoader; and in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining an execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 19 and 20 of “in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining an execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine an execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “obtaining execution process information of a target function module included in a BootLoader in a start process of a BootLoader”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2 and 21 recite additional elements such as “wherein the execution process information comprises a start execution time and an end execution time”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2 and 21 recite additional elements such as “the obtaining of the execution process information of the target function module comprises: upon start of execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a system current time as the start execution time of the target function module; and upon end of successful execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a system current time as the end execution time of the target function module”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3 and 22 recite additional elements such as “wherein the execution process information comprises execution consumption time”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3 and 22 recite additional elements such as “upon start of execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, resetting a system timer to zero and starting the system timer; and upon end of successful execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a current timing of the system timer as the execution consumption time of the target function module”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 23 of ““the trigger signal is configured to indicate end of successful startup of the BootLoader and the determining the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information comprises” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “indicating” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine end of successful startup of the BootLoader using the trigger signal and determine the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 23 of “determining execution consumption time of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine execution consumption time of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 23 of “comparing the execution consumption time with a timeout threshold corresponding to the target function module” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compare the execution consumption time with a timeout threshold corresponding to the target function module with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 23 of “in response to determining that a magnitude relationship between the execution consumption time and the timeout threshold meets a first preset condition, determining that the execution state of the target function module is normal execution” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that the execution state of the target function module is normal execution with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 23 of “in response to determining that the magnitude relationship between the execution consumption time and the timeout threshold meets a second preset condition, determining that the execution state of the target function module is timeout execution” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that the execution state of the target function module is timeout execution with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 5 and 24 of “the trigger signal is configured to indicate startup failure of the BootLoader, and the determining the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 24 recite additional elements such as “generating an indication message indicating the startup failure of the BootLoader to transmit the indication message to an external device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data displaying under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 24 recite additional elements such as “receiving a data reading request transmitted by the external device based on the indication message to transmit the obtained execution process information of the target function module to the external device to enable the external device to determine the execution state of the target function module based on the received execution process information”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “wherein the target function module is one or more of a plurality of function modules included in the BootLoader, a startup process of the BootLoader includes a plurality of stages, each of the stages includes a plurality of sub-stages, each of the sub-stages includes a plurality of sub-unit stages, and each of the sub-unit stages is encapsulated as one of the function modules”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “wherein the startup process of the BootLoader refers to a process in which each of the function modules is started up in sequence”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 8 and 25 recite additional elements such as “after the obtaining of the execution process information of the target function module included in the BootLoader, writing the obtained execution process information into an embedded multimedia memory of an embedded device to read the obtained execution process information of the target function module from the embedded multimedia memory in use”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 9 of “the external device first determines whether an execution status of each of the target function modules is an execution success or an execution error based on the received execution process information” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine whether an execution status of each of the target function modules is an execution success or an execution error based on the received execution process information with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 10 of “in response to the external device receiving the execution process information of a target function module, it is determined that the execution state of the target function module receiving the execution process information is the execution success” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that the execution state of the target function module receiving the execution process information is the execution success with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 11 of “for the target function module of which the execution state is the execution success, the external device determines whether the execution state of the target function module is timeout execution based on the received execution process information of the target function module” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine whether the execution state of the target function module is timeout execution based on the received execution process information of the target function module with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 12 of “in response to the external device not receiving the execution process information of a target function module, it is determined that the execution state of the target function module receiving the execution process information is the execution error” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that the execution state of the target function module receiving the execution process information is the execution error with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 13 of “calculating a difference between the end execution time and the start execution time to obtain the execution consumption time” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may calculate a difference between the end execution time and the start execution time to obtain the execution consumption time with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 21-25 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-13 and 21-25 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 19 respectively.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 2, 4, 6-8, 19-21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning (CN 107992397 A), in view of Dover (US PGPub 20160147997).
As per Claim 1, Ning teaches of a method for monitoring a BootLoader startup procedure, comprising: obtaining execution process information of a target function module included in a BootLoader in a start process of a BootLoader; and determining an execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module. (On pages 4-5, Wherein, there is different startup functions [target function module] in different startup stages, for example, such as, SEC phase is responsible for receiving simultaneously Processing system startup and Restart Signal etc .. S105, when the actual starting time of the target starting phase is greater than the start time threshold of the target starting stage [execution process information], the starting stage [execution state] of the target determined as abnormal starting period starting time is abnormal. It can be understood that, if the actual start duration of the target starting phase exceeds the duration threshold of the preset target start phase, it indicates that the starting duration of the target starting period is too long, the target starting step of starting performance is abnormal, therefore, it needs to make the target start phase determined to be abnormal starting stage.)
Ning does not Dover teaches of in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining the execution state … (Par 13, As described above, to improve reliability of a computing system, instructions may be tested before execution to detect possible corruption. In accordance with embodiments described herein, when a computing system is powered on, the computing system may execute startup routine (e.g., basic input/output system (BIOS)) instructions stored in a nonvolatile memory device (e.g., a boot device), which performs a corruption detection test on subsequently executed instructions, such as boot loader instructions. For example, using the startup routine instructions, the computing system may retrieve boot loader instructions from a particular address in memory and perform a cryptographic hash on the boot loader instructions. Par 16, When the result of the cryptographic hash matches the expected result [detecting a trigger signal], the microcontroller may determine with reasonable certainty that the startup routine instructions have not been corrupted and are safe to be executed [execution state] by the computing system. Par 45-46, More specifically,. The result may then be compared with an expected result. In this manner, the startup routine instructions read from the flash main array 34 may be compared with an uncorrupted (e.g., trusted) version of the startup routine instructions.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining the execution state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Dover, into that of Ning because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
As per Claim 2, Ning further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the execution process information comprises a start execution time and an end execution time; and the obtaining of the execution process information of the target function module comprises: upon start of execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a system current time as the start execution time of the target function module; and upon end of successful execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a system current time as the end execution time of the target function module. (On page 2, Processor, for running the BIOS program, starts the current target start stage to be launched by the BIOS program, And determine to start the initial time in the target start stage; When BIOS program completes the startup in the target start stage, Determine to complete the finish time in the target start stage by the BIOS program; By the BIOS program according to the mesh Initial time and the finish time of startup stage is marked, determines the actual starting duration in the target start stage; By described BIOS program obtains the preset target start stage corresponding starting duration threshold value; When the reality in the target start stage When starting duration is more than the starting duration threshold value in the target start stage, by the BIOS program by the target start rank Section is determined as starting duration and there is abnormal startup stage)
As per Claim 4, Ning further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger signal is configured to indicate end of successful startup of the BootLoader, and the determining the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information comprises: determining execution consumption time of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information of the target function module; comparing the execution consumption time with a timeout threshold corresponding to the target function module; in response to determining that a magnitude relationship between the execution consumption time and the timeout threshold meets a first preset condition, determining that the execution state of the target function module is normal execution; and in response to determining that the magnitude relationship between the execution consumption time and the timeout threshold meets a second preset condition, determining that the execution state of the target function module is timeout execution. (On page 3, By above scheme, when BIOS program starts some startup stage, the BIOS program can starting and When terminating to start the startup stage, record starts the initial time of the startup stage and completes to start the startup stage respectively Finish time, in this way, initial time that can be according to the startup stage and finish time, can determine the startup stage Actual starting duration, so that when the BIOS program completes the startup of the startup stage, can be according to the reality of the startup stage Border starting duration and the starting duration threshold value of the preset startup stage, analyze whether the startup stage belongs to abnormal startup In the stage, realizing that the exception for improving positioning effects BIOS program startability opens while abnormal startup stage is accurately positioned The efficiency in dynamic stage, also reduces the complexity of positioning abnormal startup stage. On pages 2-3, When BIOS program completes the startup in the target start stage, determine to complete the end in the target start stage Moment; Initial time and finish time according to the target start stage, determine actually opening for the target start stage Dynamic duration; Obtain the preset target start stage corresponding starting duration threshold value; When the actual starting duration in the target start stage is more than the starting duration threshold value in the target start stage, The target start stage is determined as starting duration and there is abnormal abnormal startup stage.)
As per Claim 6, Ning further teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the target function module is one or more of a plurality of function modules included in the BootLoader, a startup process of the BootLoader includes a plurality of stages, each of the stages includes a plurality of sub-stages, each of the sub-stages includes a plurality of sub-unit stages, and each of the sub-unit stages is encapsulated as one of the function modules. (On pages 1-2, From multiple sub-stages in the target start stage, determine current target sub-stage to be launched, start the target Sub-stage, and determine to start the initial time of the target sub-stage; When BIOS program completes the startup of the target sub-stage, determine to complete the finish time of the target sub-stage; Obtain the preset corresponding starting duration threshold value of the target sub-stage; Initial time and finish time according to the target sub-stage, determine the actual starting duration of the target sub-stage; When the actual starting duration of the target sub-stage is more than the starting duration threshold value of the target sub-stage, by the mesh Mark sub-stage is determined as starting duration and there is abnormal abnormal sub-stage. On page 3, Preferably, the processor is additionally operable to, and determines to start the starting in the target start stage in the BIOS program After moment, by the BIOS program from multiple sub-stages in the target start stage, current mesh to be launched is determined Sub-stage is marked, starts the target sub-stage, and determines to start the initial time of the target sub-stage; When BIOS program is completed During the startup of the target sub-stage, determine to complete the finish time of the target sub-stage by the BIOS program; Pass through The BIOS program obtains the preset corresponding starting duration threshold value of the target sub-stage; Using the BIOS program according to institute Initial time and the finish time of target sub-stage are stated, determines the actual starting duration of the target sub-stage; When the target When the actual starting duration of sub-stage is more than the starting duration threshold value of the target sub-stage, by the BIOS program by described in Target sub-stage is determined as starting duration and there is abnormal abnormal sub-stage.)
As per Claim 7, Ning further teaches of the method of claim 6, wherein the startup process of the BootLoader refers to a process in which each of the function modules is started up in sequence. (On page 4, 6th par, It is understood that the boot sequence of multiple startup stages of BIOS program can be set as needed, BIOS journeys Sequence successively starts the plurality of startup stage according to the boot sequence of the plurality of startup stage set in advance. Such as, usually In the case of, BIOS program can first start SEC phase, and after treating SEC phase start completion, which carries out the PEC stages Startup, then successively start DEX stages and DBS stages etc .. On page 6, It is understood that each startup stage includes multiple sub-stages, the boot sequence of this multiple sub-stage also may be used To preset. BIOS program is opened according to each sub-stage in the startup stage during start each startup stage Dynamic order, starts the plurality of sub-stage successively.)
As per Claim 8, Ning further teaches of the method of claim 1, further comprising: after the obtaining of the execution process information of the target function module included in the BootLoader, writing the obtained execution process information into an embedded multimedia memory of an embedded device to read the obtained execution process information of the target function module from the embedded multimedia memory in use. (On Page 5, 1st-2nd par, The efficiency of normal startup stage, meanwhile, the startup information that user inquires about startup stage one by one is it also avoid, and one by one to each startup Stage carries out analyzing caused complexity. It is understood that after the target start stage is determined as abnormal startup stage by BIOS program, in order to just Abnormal in reminding user's target start stage to exist in time, which can also export for the target start stage Abnormity prompt, the abnormity prompt are used to prompt the starting duration in user's target start stage to there is exception. Such as, can be with word Form export the information in target start stage, and prompt the target start stage exist start overlong time information.)
Re Claim 19, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 20, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re Claim 21, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 23, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 25, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 25 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
7. Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning (CN 107992397 A), in view of Dover (US PGPub 20160147997), and further in view of Basterash (US PGPub 20200363855).
As per Claim 3, neither Ning nor Dover specifically teaches, however Basterash teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the execution process information comprises execution consumption time; and the obtaining of the execution process information of the target function module comprises: upon start of execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, resetting a system timer to zero and starting the system timer; and upon end of successful execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a current timing of the system timer as the execution consumption time of the target function module. (Claim 3, The control device of claim 1, wherein the control device further comprises a hardware timer configured to be reset periodically by the OS component, and wherein the boot loader component initializes the hardware timer prior to loading the OS component. Par 31, For example, as illustrated by reference numeral 118, boot loader component 108 can initialize one or more hardware timers 110 prior to loading OS component 106. Likewise, OS component 106 can be extended with functionality to periodically issue reset instruction 120 to reset the count or offset of hardware timer 110. Hence, if OS component fails to load, freezes or crashes, or otherwise fails to issue reset instruction 120, expiration message 122 can be provided to boot loader component 108. In response, boot loader component 108 can reboot 124 OS component 106. In some cases, for example if previous reboot attempts have been performed, boot loader component 108 can take other actions such as, for example, performing a recovery procedure further detailed in connection with FIG. 2.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add upon start of execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, resetting a system timer to zero and starting the system timer; and upon end of successful execution of the target function module included in the BootLoader, obtaining a current timing of the system timer as the execution consumption time of the target function module, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Basterash, into that of Ning and Dover because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
Re Claim 22, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
8. Claims 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning (CN 107992397 A), in view of Dover (US PGPub 20160147997), and further in view of Lee (US Patent 7765393).
As per Claim 5, neither Ning nor Dover specifically teaches, however Lee teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger signal is configured to indicate startup failure of the BootLoader, and the determining the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information comprises: generating an indication message indicating the startup failure of the BootLoader to transmit the indication message to an external device; and receiving a data reading request transmitted by the external device based on the indication message to transmit the obtained execution process information of the target function module to the external device to enable the external device to determine the execution state of the target function module based on the received execution process information. (Col 5, lines 28-45, The flow then goes to 509, where the loaded boot loader loads an OS and passes control to it. If both the first and second boot loaders fail to pass the above checking steps (because of data corruption, for example), the flow goes to block 510. At block 510, the BIOS checks whether parameter Halt_for_Invalid_Boot_Loader is set as enabled. If so, at block 511, a warning message such as "No Valid Boot Loader in System Flash Memory--Fatal" will be output to a user of the processing system, an event corresponding to the warning message will be logged, and a message "System Halted" will be output to the user, and system operation will be frozen. If the parameter Halt_for_Invalid_Boot_Loader is not set as enabled, then the flow goes to block 512, where a warning message such as "No Valid Boot Loader in System Flash Memory--Fatal" will be output to a user of the processing system, an event corresponding to the warning message will be logged, and the BIOS will try to boot from a boot medium, such as a hard drive.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the trigger signal is configured to indicate startup failure of the BootLoader, and the determining the execution state of the target function module based on the obtained execution process information comprises: generating an indication message indicating the startup failure of the BootLoader to transmit the indication message to an external device; and receiving a data reading request transmitted by the external device based on the indication message to transmit the obtained execution process information of the target function module to the external device to enable the external device to determine the execution state of the target function module based on the received execution process information, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Lee, into that of Ning and Dover because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
Re Claim 24, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 24 is also rejected
under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
9. Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning (CN 107992397 A), in view of Dover (US PGPub 20160147997), and further in view of Lee (US Patent 7765393), and further in view of Rich (US PGPub 20030204709).
As per Claim 9, none of Ning, Dover and Lee specifically teaches, however Rich teaches of the method of claim 5, wherein the external device first determines whether an execution status of each of the target function modules is an execution success or an execution error based on the received execution process information. (Par 12, An unsuccessful boot, or hang, may be detected by a number of methods. One such method may comprise a failure of the boot loader 216 to receive a signal, the signal indicating the status of the boot process. This signal may indicate a successful boot, and may be sent from one or more components of the computing system 300, such as the operating system, and may be sent upon completion or substantial completion of a boot and load process. A failure to receive this signal may provide boot loader software 216 with an indication that the load and boot process was not complete or substantially complete, and functional block 208 may determine that there was not a successful boot. Alternatively, boot loader 216 may include the capability to access one or more files on a computing platform 300, and may access these one or more files after a particular period of time, such as, for example, upon the expiration of the previously described timer 206. These one or more files may be stored, for example, in memory 306 or 308, for example. In this embodiment, if the boot loader 216 is unable to access these one or more files, this may be interpreted as an indication that the load and boot process was not successfully completed. In this case, boot loader 216 may instruct a reset 212 of the computing system 300 in a method described previously, for example.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining the execution state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Rich, into that of Ning, Dover and Lee because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
As per Claim 10, none of Ning, Dover and Lee specifically teaches, however Rich teaches of the method of claim 9, wherein in response to the external device receiving the execution process information of a target function module, it is determined that the execution state of the target function module receiving the execution process information is the execution success. (Par 12, An unsuccessful boot, or hang, may be detected by a number of methods. One such method may comprise a failure of the boot loader 216 to receive a signal, the signal indicating the status of the boot process. This signal may indicate a successful boot, and may be sent from one or more components of the computing system 300, such as the operating system, and may be sent upon completion or substantial completion of a boot and load process. A failure to receive this signal may provide boot loader software 216 with an indication that the load and boot process was not complete or substantially complete, and functional block 208 may determine that there was not a successful boot.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining the execution state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Rich, into that of Ning, Dover and Lee because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
As per Claim 12, Ning further teaches of the method of claim 9, wherein in response to the external device not receiving the execution process information of a target function module, it is determined that the execution state of the target function module receiving the execution process information is the execution error. (On page 4, S105, when the actual starting duration in the target start stage is more than the starting duration threshold value in the target start stage When, which is determined as starting duration and there is abnormal startup stage. If it is understood that the actual starting duration in the target start stage exceeds the pre-set target start. The starting duration threshold value in stage, then illustrate that the starting duration in the target start stage is long, the startability in the target start stage There can be exception, therefore, it is necessary to the target start stage is determined as abnormal startup stage.)
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning (CN 107992397 A), in view of Dover (US PGPub 20160147997), in view of Lee (US Patent 7765393), in view of Rich (US PGPub 20030204709), and further in view of Yang (CN 104461659 A).
As per Claim 11, none of Ning, Dover, Lee and Rich specifically teaches, however Yang teaches of the method of claim 10, wherein, for the target function module of which the execution state is the execution success, the external device determines whether the execution state of the target function module is timeout execution based on the received execution process information of the target function module. (Abstract, The application provides a method for starting a computer with high reliability. The method includes: when the computer is powered on, the logic device combination starts a timer with a predetermined duration internally; when the logic device combination determines that the startup mode saved by itself is the main mode , control the CPU to start the main bootloader in the first block; when the logic device combination determines that the boot mode saved by itself is the slave mode, control the CPU to start the backup bootloader in the second block; when the CPU determines that the bootloader starts successfully, notify the logic The device combination starts successfully; the logic device combination closes the timer when receiving the CPU's startup success notification, and when it is determined that the timer is overtime and the current startup mode is the main mode, the startup mode is changed from the master mode to the slave mode. mode and resets the CPU. The present application can effectively reduce the negative impact of reliability reduction caused by damage to a single bootloader.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining the execution state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Yang, into that of Ning, Dover, Lee and Rich because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning (CN 107992397 A), in view of Dover (US PGPub 20160147997), and further in view of Diwan (US PGPub 20070162732).
As per Claim 13, neither Ning nor Dover specifically teaches, however Diwan teaches of the method of claim 2, wherein the execution process information comprises execution consumption time; and the method further comprises: calculating a difference between the end execution time and the start execution time to obtain the execution consumption time. (Par 5, Boot duration may be defined as the time interval between a boot start time and a boot end time. The boot start time can occur either when powering on a computer or when the BIOS invokes the boot program. The boot end time occurs when a user is able to use the computer system, such as to start an application. Over time, as an operating system accumulates components and startup applications, the operating system's boot duration may increase and thereby cause users to wait longer for a computer system to start. For example, as a user installs applications or hardware, the installation may add various components, such as drivers, to the operating system. These components may increase the boot duration of the operating system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in response to detection of a trigger signal of the BootLoader, determining the execution state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Diwan, into that of Ning and Dover because this modification can help by providing security verification such as a concrete checkpoint to determine to execute the target function after the boot-loading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Chat Do can be reached on 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights