DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-2) in the reply filed on 2026-02-23 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People's Republic of China on 2023-05-25. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310599974.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a secure virtual memory service module (SVSM) … to regulate”, “a validator for verifying”, and “a security monitor (SM) configured to regulate” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification is unclear as to the corresponding structure or acts described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant is cautioned that there is no computing hardware in the claims besides the 112(f) invocations. If the claims are amended to not be interpreted under 112(f) without adding computer hardware, then the claims will be subject to a §101 software per se rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claim 1 recites the limitation “a security monitor (SM) configured to regulate interactions between VMs and the GPU in accordance with security properties”, and the specification does not describe the claimed feature in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
It is first noted that original claims lack adequate written description when the claims are generically drafted but the written description fails to support the scope of the genus claimed; See MPEP § 2161.01(I). That is, “the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus”. In this instance, the claims generally recite a security monitor (SM) configured to regulate interactions between VMs and the GPU in accordance with security properties. The specification does provide antecedent basis for this limitation (e.g. “a security monitor (SM) for monitoring signal interactions between drivers and the GPU to improve overall GPU data integrity” [0023], [0047], and [0050]); however, the specification does not provide a suitable level of embodiments or species for how to achieve this claim function for any generic application to “improve overall GPU data integrity” as disclosed or “regulate interactions between VMs and the GPU in accordance with security properties” such as claimed. Thus, the specification does not provide the necessary written description support for the full breadth of the asserted claims as required by the written description requirement.
It is also noted that original claims lack adequate written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved; See MPEP § 2161.01(I). That is, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”. As previously noted, the claims generally recite a security monitor configured to regulate interactions between VMs and the GPU in accordance with security properties. The specification does provide antecedent basis for this limitation as discussed supra; however, the specification does not adequately describe how to “regulate interactions between VMs and the GPU in accordance with security properties”. More particularly, even ignoring that an element claimed as a monitor is claimed as regulating interactions in accordance with security properties, the specification does not appear to describe any particular security properties nor describe how interactions could be regulated in accordance with any said security properties. Thus, the specification does not disclose, let alone adequately describe with sufficient detail, the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing as required by the written description requirement.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, with regard to claim 1, claim elements “a secure virtual memory service module (SVSM) … to regulate”, “a validator for verifying”, and “a security monitor (SM) configured to regulate” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). In particular, the Specification does not explicitly disclose what structure performs the claimed function(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKenzie et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20110145916-A1, hereinafter “McKenzie”).
With respect to independent claim 1, McKenzie discloses an apparatus for providing a trusted execution environment (“TEE”) for one or more graphic processing units (“GPUs”), comprising:
a secure hypervisor running on a central processing unit (CPU) to regulate all interactions between software stacks and hardware {paras. 0093-0094: “the computing device 201 can execute a virtualization environment that includes a Type 1 hypervisor 202” and “controls processor scheduling and memory partitioning for a virtual machine 232 executing on the computing device 201”}.
an application sandbox virtual machine (VM) running on top the hypervisor that hosts one or more applications {paras. 0094-0097: “the hypervisor 202 loads a virtual machine image to create a virtual machine 232” with “applications executing on a virtual machine”}.
a secure virtual memory service module (SVSM) running at virtual machine privilege level 0 (VMPL0) in a VM to regulate interactions between the applications and a GPU {paras. 0235-0250: “graphics manager 902 may be executed by a trusted dom0 entity”, wherein “graphics manager may … assign a secure section of GPU memory to … an application of the trusted virtual machine”}, wherein the SVSM includes a validator for verifying security and integrity of one or more GPU executions running on the GPU {paras. 0235-0250: “the graphics manager can prevent the unsecure virtual machine from reading the secure section of memory”}.
a security monitor (SM) configured to regulate interactions between VMs and the GPU in accordance with security properties {paras. 0235-0250: “graphics manager 902, in some embodiments, may make that determination by reviewing one or more security policies, discussed in more detail above, to determine whether the application 904 has permission to write to memory or read from a particular area of memory”, the memory is “GPU memory”}.
With respect to dependent claim 2, McKenzie discloses one or more inter-process communication (IPC) situated inside the TEE {paras. 0115-0133: “systems for inter-domain communication between both privileged and non-privileged domains running under a hypervisor”}, wherein the validator monitors GPU kernels to prevent unauthorized access to a shared memory region by the IPC {paras. 0115-0133 and 0235-0250: “an API (Application Programmers Interface) that can be used in both kernel and user modes”, wherein “graphics manager 902 … to determine whether the application 904 has permission to write to memory or read from a particular area of memory” of a GPU}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Bechtel whose telephone number is 571-270-5436. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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 (“Bill”) 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.
/Kevin Bechtel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491