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 Amendment
This is a reply to the amendment filed on 12/03/2025, in which, claim(s) 1-3, 5-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 14-15, and 18-20 are amended. Claim(s) 4 and 17 are cancelled. No claim(s) are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 USC §101 regarding claim(s) 20 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 rejected under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on 12/03/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “The information processing device according to claim 4, further comprising”. Since claim 4 is canceled, claim 8 is now depending on a canceled claim. Please correct the dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thor et al. (US 2022/0335132 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2023/0283475 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Thor discloses An information processing device comprising:
a first determination unit that determines whether instruction information for issuing an instruction to switch from (i) a first verification method of verifying validity of firmware based on using a digital signature generated based on public key encryption to (ii) a second verification method of verifying the validity of the firmware based on using a message authentication code generated using a message authentication key generated based on a random number that has been received ([0027-0028], “At step 620, the microcontroller performs a digital signature verification process. This could utilize public-key cryptography, for example. At step 630, the system determines whether the firmware updates digital signature has been successfully verified”, “If the verification is a success… At step 670, the bootloader performs a security process using the symmetric key. In one example, the bootloader determines whether the HMAC is correct as part of the security process. For example, the HMAC of the application image of the firmware update can be calculated and compared with the HMAC stored in the secure location”);
a first generation circuit that generates the message authentication code, when it is determined by the first determination unit that the instruction information has been received ([0011], “an indication (as the instruction information) from the controller that the digital signature was verified”, [0027-0028], “If the verification is a success (i.e. it is determined that the instruction information has been received) …the bootloader determines whether the HMAC is correct as part of the security process. For example, the HMAC of the application image of the firmware update can be calculated” (i.e. generated)),
Thor does not explicitly teach but Jiang teaches
a message authentication code generated using a message authentication key generated based on the random number; a random number generation circuit that generates the random number; generating the message authentication key used to generate the message authentication code, based on the random number; and a second generation unit that generates the message authentication code of the firmware using the message authentication key. ([0025], “The terminal device generates a random number N4, and sends N4 to the registration device by using the first secure transport channel, where N4 is used for the registration device to generate the second symmetric key based on N4 and a second negotiation key, and to generate third authentication code based on N4 and the second symmetric key”),
Thor and Jiang are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of information security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jiang with the disclosure of Thor. The motivation/suggestion would have been so that security and reliability of identity authentication can be ensured (Jiang, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 are allowable over prior arts since the prior arts taken individually or in combination fails to particular discloses, fairly suggest or render obvious the following italic limitations:
In regards to claim(s) 1, and 14,
“Ser. No. 17/701,482Page 4 of 12Dkt. No. 107862 1030USC3C1 0038C10determining whether the instruction information is stored in an instruction information memory after power is supplied;
verifying the firmware stored in a firmware memory using the message authentication code stored in the message authentication code memory when it is determined that the instruction information is stored in the instruction information memory and
verifying the digital signature when it is determined that the instruction information is not stored in the instruction information memory”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHENG-FENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am - 5 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, Eleni A Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/CHENG-FENG HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights