DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This written action is responding to the amendment dated on 01/12/2026.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under
the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 2, 7, and 11 are amended.
4. Claims 1-17 are submitted for examination.
5. Claims 1-17 are rejected.
6. The Examiner would like to point out that this action is made final (See MPEP
706.07a).
7.
Applicant’s Argument:
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks/Arguments, Applicant argues De Atley does not teach
1. “wherein said first application is identified by said shared software platform using a
first random number and a second number”.
2. “associating the at least one digital asset with said second number”.
Response to Argument: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments
Because Atley substantially teaches the random identifiers may be based on various functions, such as a hash function of information provided in the application's package, some other type of cryptographic function, the random identifiers for the containers may be based on various unique attributes of the software [0024], [0081] and fig. 4. Thus Atley teaches the above limitations.
8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over DE ATLEY et al. US 2013/0061314 (hereinafter Atley).
Regarding claim 11 Atley teaches a method of storing at least one first digital asset of a first application of a system, wherein the system comprises:
a first application [0069]; and
a shared software platform (Atley teaches an operating system may offer a number of services to application programs and users [0072-0073]);
wherein said first application is identified by said shared software platform using a first random number and a second number (Atley teaches assign two random identifiers for a container, where the random numbers may be related to a plurality of functions or attributes of a software [0024], [0081]);
wherein the method comprises: storing by said shared software platform of said at least one digital asset; and associating the at least one digital asset with said second number (Atley teaches assign two random identifiers for a container, where the random numbers may be related to a plurality of functions or attributes of a software [0024], [0081]);
Regarding claim 12 Atley teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising using, by the shared software platform, said second number to sign said at least one first digital asset [0026].
Regarding claim 13 Atley teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising using, by the shared software platform, said second number to encrypt said at least one first digital asset [0026].
Regarding claim 14 Atley teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising storing said at least one first digital asset in a portion of a memory [0068].
Regarding claim 15 Atley teaches a method of recovery of at least one digital asset associated with a third number by a third application identified by a fourth random number, said method implemented by a system comprising:
said third application [0069]; and
a shared software platform (Atley teaches an operating system may offer a number of services to application programs and users [0072-0073]);
wherein the third application is identified by said shared software platform using the fourth random number and the third number (Atley teaches assign two random identifiers for a container, where the random numbers may be related to a plurality of functions or attributes of a software [0024], [0081]);
said method comprising: verifying, by said shared software platform, a matching of said third number and the fourth random number (Atley teaches if the software is verified as being signed by a trusted authority, installation framework may use this verification as additional or alternative criteria for allowing execution [0096], wherein the correlation between an application ID and container ID is only known and maintained by a system component such as the operating system [0098]).
Regarding claim 16 Atley teaches the method according to claim 15, further comprising: when the matching is verified, transmitting by said shared software platform of said at least one digital asset to said third application (Atley teaches a trusted authority may authorize software for installation and/or execution by digitally signing the software, wherein a digital signature uses public key cryptography to ensure the integrity of data. If the code is authorized and verified as such, it may be generally executed without any further system or user interaction [0026-0027] and fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 17 Atley teaches the method according to claim 16, further comprising: when the matching is not verified, transmitting by said shared software platform of an error message to said third application (Atley teaches a computing device may alert the user that the code is not authorized and ask the user if they still wish to execute the unauthorized code, or the computing devices may be configured to prevent unauthorized code from being executed at all, regardless of the user's wishes [0026-0027]).
9.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atley as mentioned above, in view of Luh et al. US 2012/0090021 (hereinafter Luh).
Regarding claim 1 Atley teaches a system, comprising:
a first application [0069]; and
a shared software platform (Atley teaches an operating system may offer a number of services to application programs and users [0072-0073]);
wherein said first application is identified by said shared software platform using a first random number and a second number (Atley teaches assign two random identifiers for a container, where the random numbers may be related to a plurality of functions or attributes of a software [0024], [0081]);
wherein said second number is representative of said first random number and is stored in a first portion of a memory only accessible to said shared software platform (Atley teaches the random identifiers provide a level of indirection that helps allow the installation framework control the installation and execution of software within its container. The random identifiers are unknown to the application itself and known only to the installation framework. This mechanism provides the operation system a point of control that ensures the behavior of an application's installation and execution [0079]). Atley does not teach a random number is stored in encrypted fashion in an executable code. Luh substantially teaches executable code may include an encrypted signature [0046], wherein the signature such as a hash value [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atley such that the invention further includes a random number is stored in encrypted fashion in an executable code. One would have been motivated to do so to verifies that the signature is valid when executing the application [0046].
Regarding claim 2 Atley as modified teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said second number is generated by said software platform (Atley teaches an installer may randomly assign an identifier for a container, wherein the installer is executed by an operating system [0083-0084]).
Regarding claim 3 Atley as modified teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said first random number is generated by a first original equipment manufacturer of said first application [0070].
Regarding claim 4 Atley as modified teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein said executable code of said first application is stored in a second portion of the memory which is not accessible to a second original equipment manufacturer of a second application implemented by said shared software platform (Atley teaches to enhance security, containers can employ randomly assigned identifiers, such as random directory names, that are unknown to the application. One advantage, among others, is that this prevents the application from becoming a security risk since it does not directly control its resources or directory space [0081]).
Regarding claim 6 Atley as modified teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said system is a secure operating system embedded in a secure element (Atley teaches an environment on the computing device that supports secure installation of software in order to implement secure installation of software, the computing device may comprise an installer, an operating system, an installation framework, storage, and one or more containers arranged in a directory structure [0068]).
Regarding claim 7 Atley teaches a method of booting a system, wherein the system comprises:
a first application [0069]; and
a shared software platform (Atley teaches an operating system may offer a number of services to application programs and users [0072-0073]);
wherein said first application is identified by said shared software platform using a first random number and a second number (Atley teaches assign two random identifiers for a container, where the random numbers may be related to a plurality of functions or attributes of a software [0024], [0081]);
the method comprising:
sending, by said first application, of an encrypted executable code to said shared software platform (Atley teaches upon receiving this package, an operating system may execute an installer as a running process to perform the installation of the requested software [0083];
extracting, by said shared platform, of the first random number (Atley teaches an installer may employ a hashing function that is based on information from the package [0084]);
generating, by said platform, of the second number which is representative of said first random number (Atley teaches an installer may utilize various arbitrary attributes of the software to determine the random identifier [0084]); and
storing said second number in a first portion of a memory only accessible to said shared software platform (Atley teaches in response, installation framework 404 may record the random identifier and associate it with the application [0085]). Atley does not teach a random number is stored in encrypted fashion in an executable code. Luh substantially teaches executable code may include an encrypted signature [0046], wherein the signature such as a hash value [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atley such that the invention further includes a random number is stored in encrypted fashion in an executable code. One would have been motivated to do so to verifies that the signature is valid when executing the application [0046].
10.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atley and Luh as mentioned above and further in view of Trau et al. US 2016/0218763 (hereinafter Trau).
Regarding claim 5 Atley as modified teaches the system according to claim 1. The combination of Atley and Luh does not teach a random number is modified during an update of an application. Trau substantially teaches updating a random number for each version of a file [0042], [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atley and Luh such that the invention further includes updating a random number for each version of a file. One would have been motivated to do so to increase calculation speed and reduced processor utilization [0048].
11.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atley and Luh as mentioned above and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. US 2007/0180249 (hereinafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claim 8 Atley as modified teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising said shared software platform (Atley teaches an operating system may offer a number of services to application programs and users [0072-0073]). The combination of Atley and Luh does not teach decrypting encrypted executable code with a first decryption key; and storing said decrypted executable code. Hatakeyama substantially teaches content are received into a local memory, wherein the content include program code, wherein the content are stored in a local memory, and wherein the content may be decrypted with a decryption key [0013], [0015], [0031] and fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atley and Luh such that the invention further includes decrypting encrypted executable code with a first decryption key; and storing said decrypted executable code. One would have been motivated to do so to all a person to execute the program code to play streaming video data or perform any other processing [0031].
12.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atley, Luh, Trau, and Hatakeyama.
Regarding claim 9 Atley as modified teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising: modifying said first random number during an update of said first application (Trau teaches updating a random number for each version of a file [0042], [0048]); and storing said decrypted executable code in a second memory portion (Hatakeyama teaches content are received into a local memory, wherein the content include program code, wherein the content are stored in a local memory, and wherein the content may be decrypted with a decryption key [0013], [0015], [0031] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10 Atley as modified teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein said first random number is generated by a first original equipment manufacturer of said first application [0070]; and wherein said first decryption key is not known by a second original equipment manufacturer of a second application implemented by said shared software platform (Hatakeyama teaches system provider's public key to be securely stored within the apparatus to prevent tampering therewith [0040].
Conclusion
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 Ayoub Alata whose telephone number is (313) 446-6541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:00am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jay Kim can be reached at (571) 272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/AYOUB ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494