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
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 4/27/2026.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
For brevity, the restriction requirement has not been repeated herein. Please see the restriction requirement mailed 3/17/2026.
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (e.g. “various embodiments include”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0203638), and further in view of Loisel et al. (WO 2023/287517) hereinafter referred to as Loisel.
Regarding claim 1, Krueger disclosed a method of allocating memory resources in a computing system by centralizing memory-system resource partitioning and monitoring (MPAM) operations (Krueger Paragraph 0055 for example), the method comprising: allocating memory segments to software applications represented by different partition identifiers (PARTIDs) that are operating on the computing system (Krueger Paragraphs 0009 and 0060 for example).
Krueger did not explicitly teach determining an operating mode of the computing system; or that the allocating was based upon the determined operating mode.
Loisel taught that memory allocation can be done by determining an operating mode of the computing system and then memory allocation can be performed based upon the operating mode (Loisel Paragraphs 0016 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 2, dividing the MPAM operations between a request component included in a kernel portion of the computing system and a configure component included in a secure software portion of the computing system; and using a system control and management interface (SCMI) framework or other inter-processor communications mechanism or protocol of the computing to securely communicate information between the request component included in the kernel portion of the computing system and the configure component included in the secure software portion of the computing system (Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 3, Krueger and Loisel taught dividing the MPAM operations between a request component included in a kernel portion of the computing system and a configure component included in a secure software portion of the computing system; and using a system control and management interface (SCMI) framework to send an MPAM configuration request message to the configure component included in the secure software portion and operating on a central processing unit (CPU) co-processor (CPUCP) of the computing system (Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 4, Krueger and Loisel taught partitioning, by the CPUCP, cache memory for use by multiple software applications operating on the computing system based on specific requirements or priority levels of each of the software applications (Krueger Fig. 13 and Paragraphs 0129-0144 and Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 5, Krueger and Loisel taught that partitioning, by the CPUCP, the cache memory for use by multiple software applications operating on the computing system based on the specific requirements or priority levels of each of the software applications comprises: partitioning, by the CPUCP, the cache memory to reduce cache collisions, cache pollution, or cache thrashing based on MPAM configurations or quality of service (QOS) parameters associated with a component that is not configured to support MPAM operations (Krueger Fig. 13 and Paragraphs 0129-0144 and Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 6, Krueger and Loisel taught that partitioning, by the CPUCP, the cache memory for use by multiple software applications operating on the computing system based on the specific requirements or priority levels of each of the software applications comprises: partitioning, by the CPUCP, the cache memory so that one cache memory portion is reserved for secure applications, and the remaining cache memory portions are reserved for non-secure applications (Krueger Fig. 1 and 4 and Paragraph 0059 and Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 7, Krueger and Loisel taught a kernel portion of the computing system assumes complete control over the MPAM configurations for each memory segment or software application and a central processing unit (CPU) co-processor (CPUCP) of the computing system implements the kernel's commands without modification while the computing system operates in a KERNEL_FULL_CONTROL mode; the kernel operates as a pass-through component by forwarding received information to the CPUCP and the CPUCP assumes complete control over the MPAM configurations for each memory segment or software application while the computing system operates in a SECURE_SW_FULL_CONTROL mode; and the kernel and the CPUCP share control over the MPAM configurations for each memory segment or software application while the computing system operates in a HYBRID mode (Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, and 0062-0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 9, Krueger and Loisel taught that the operations for allocating memory segments to software applications represented by PARTIDs that are operating on the computing system are performed in a virtual machine configured to allow for autonomous or hybrid mode configuration of MPAM operations (Krueger Fig. 1 and 4 and Paragraph 0059 and Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 10, Krueger disclosed a computing system, comprising: a memory; and a central processing unit (CPU) co-processor (CPUCP) coupled to the memory (Krueger Figs. 3-4 and Paragraphs 0009, 0055, 0058-0060 for example), wherein the CPUCP is configured to: allocate memory segments to software applications represented by different partition identifiers (PARTIDs) that are operating on the computing system (Krueger Figs. 3-4 and Paragraphs 0009, 0055, 0058-0060 for example).
Krueger did not explicitly teach determining an operating mode of the computing system; or that the allocating was based upon the determined operating mode.
Loisel taught that memory allocation can be done by determining an operating mode of the computing system and then memory allocation can be performed based upon the operating mode (Loisel Paragraphs 0016 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 11, Krueger and Loisel taught that the CPUCP is further configured to: divide memory-system resource partitioning and monitoring (MPAM) operations between a request component included in a kernel portion of the computing system and a configure component included in a secure software portion of the computing system; and use a system control and management interface (SCMI) framework to send an MPAM configuration request message to the configure component included in the secure software portion and operating on the CPUCP (Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 12, Krueger and Loisel taught that the CPUCP is further configured to: partition cache memory for use by multiple software applications operating on the computing system based on specific requirements or priority levels of each of the software applications (Krueger Fig. 13 and Paragraphs 0129-0144 and Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 13, Krueger and Loisel taught that the CPUCP is further configured to: partition cache memory so that one cache memory portion is reserved for secure applications, and the remaining cache memory portions are reserved for non-secure applications (Krueger Fig. 1 and 4 and Paragraph 0059 and Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, 0062-0066 and 0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Regarding claim 14, Krueger and Loisel taught a kernel portion of the computing system assumes complete control over the MPAM configurations for each memory segment or software application and the CPUCP implements the kernel's commands without modification while the computing system operates in a KERNEL_FULL_CONTROL mode; the kernel operates as a pass-through component by forwarding received information to the CPUCP and the CPUCP assumes complete control over the MPAM configurations for each memory segment or software application while the computing system operates in the SECURE_SW_FULL_CONTROL mode; and the kernel and the CPUCP share control over the MPAM configurations for each memory segment or software application while the computing system operates in a HYBRID mode(Loisel Figs. 1 and 3, and Paragraphs 0016, 0046-0049, and 0062-0071 for example).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the teachings of Loisel in the memory allocation system of Krueger by determining the mode (user/supervisor/machine) and allocating distinct partitions and partition identifiers based upon the mode. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a finer granularity of allocation and control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0338493 taught enforcing attestation of read-only protected memory during attestation validity period. A client computer system identifies a change in a read-only protected memory protection status for a software component loaded at the client computer system. The client computer system then determines that a validity time period of an attestation report is unexpired. The attestation report comprises one or more attested properties, including one or more read-only memory protection (ROMP) attested properties for the software component. The client computer system also determines that at least one ROMP attested property for the software component is no longer valid due to the change in the read-only protected memory protection status for a software component. Based on the at least one ROMP attested property for the software component being no longer valid, the client computer system initiates a remedial action to prevent interaction of the software component with a relying party computer system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights