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 action is responsive to communication filed on: 4 February 2026 with acknowledgement of an original application filed on June 2024.
2. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19, are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15, are independent claims. Claims 1, 8, and 15, have been amended. Claims 6, 13, and 19, have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been fully considered however they are not persuasive, when noted below. The Examiner notes the objection to the Abstract and specification is maintained despite the amendments because the language in the Abstract and the specification are confusing, see the rejections below. The 112 1st is removed dues to amendment. The 2nd rejections are also maintained. Although the amendments are an improvement the language is still confusing, see the rejections below. If the Applicant wishes to continue prosecution it is strongly recommended an interview be scheduled.
I) In response to Applicant’s argument beginning on page 11, “Claims 1-20 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection…”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The indefiniteness rejection is placed on the claims because the claim language is confusing, therefore the claims are indefinite. The features and paragraphs cited in the 112 rejection were suggestions to amend the claims so that the meaning of the invention is clear. As stated in the amended specification paragraph 5, “the configuration files of the safety-relevant components are vulnerable to attack during boot and post-boot runtime”. Perhaps the claims should be amended so that it is clear these safety-relevant components configuration files are protected? As amended it is not clear what the invention pertains to? Appropriate Correction is required.
II) In response to Applicant’s argument beginning on page 13, “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited references…However, Smith, at best merely describes initiating TEE loading. Smith does not disclose marking memory as non-accessible, nor does it suggest any relation between such marking and TEE initialization”.
The Examiner disagrees with argument. The Smith/’820 reference teaches enabling a fast boot of secure and unsecure environments, see the Abstract. Throughout the disclosure of Smith/’820 the language suggests enabling a secure boot despite untrusted applications. The Examiner interprets the language used that indicates a secure boot is initiated and a trusted environment is loaded dynamically despite boot measurements of untrusted application equivalent to the argued claim limitation, “based on the marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by other components, initiating the loading of a trusted execution environment (TEE) in an application core (A-Core)”. Note in Smith/’820 paragraph 19 the application states “The use of dynamic root of trust measurement and evaluation of memory values, a described below, enables the use of a fast secure boot approach that still verifies “secure” and “unsecure” environments among multiple virtual machines, enabling improved performance versus if the same components were launched and used with traditional sequential approach”. The ‘evaluation of memory values of untrusted and trusted environments’ is interpreted equivalent to “based on the marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by the other components”. In addition, the rejection of the independent claims below is a 103 rejection that uses a combination of references. The preceding limitation to the argued limitation “marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by other components” is taught in the other prior art reference Dardis/’160 reference see paragraph 29. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract like the independent claims is confusing, (i.e. indefinite). The Abstract ends with the following sentence “During shutdown, the MCU may remove the configuration file from the portion of memory component and mark the portion as accessible”. Whereas the amended independent claims end with the following limitation “based on the marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by the other components, initiating the loading of a trusted execution environment (TEE) in an application core (A-Core)”. The Abstract does not appear to relate to the independent claims and creates confusion as to what is the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
6. The disclosure specifically the specification is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure contains many run-on sentences as well as negative language which obscures the purpose of the invention and problems to be solved. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The Examiner notes the amended claim ends with the limitation “based on the marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by other components, initiating the loading of a trusted execution environment (TEE) in an application core (A-Core)”. This limitation does not make sense and is confusing, the disclosure does not provide any rationale as to marking a portion of memory as non-accessible and initiating the loading of a trusted execution environment”. Appropriate Correction is required.
9. To expedite a complete examination of the instant application the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the above rejections.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCorpo et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0159981 (hereinafter ‘981) in view of Dardis et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050160 (hereinafter ‘160) in further view of Smith et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0358220 (hereinafter ‘220).
As to independent claim 1, “the method comprising accessing a storage component that stores a plurality of configuration files; selecting at least one configuration file from among the plurality of configuration files” is taught in ‘981 Abstract, paragraphs 12-13, 78, and 80, note selecting design, templates from a database is interpreted equivalent to ‘plurality of configuration files’, also note as stated in the Abstract “The method also includes receiving a configuration file including configuration data input for the components of the SoC. The method includes compiling the configuration file and a definition file for the SoC to generate design files for the SoC.”;
“moving the at least one configuration file into a portion of a memory component” is shown in ‘981 paragraphs 61-62, the copies of the configuration tools are provided to the customer client device (i.e. a memory component);
the following is not explicitly taught in ‘981:
“A method performed by at least one microcontroller unit (MCU) implemented in a system on chip (SoC) in a vehicle to enhance security of the SoC” however ‘160 teaches computerized components such as memory and chips are used in vehicles in the Abstract, paragraphs 2, 16-17, and 29;
“and marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by other components” however ‘160 teaches an input/output memory management unit IOMMU that provides memory protection by mediating access to memory to unassigned hardware or resources in paragraph 29; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of system and methods for assembling and developing system on a chip (SOC) taught in ‘089 to include a means to protecting portions of memory as non-accessible by other components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because vehicles are equipped with a plethora of electronics today’s memory reference code (MRC) firmware stores training data to improve boot time on subsequent boots improvements are needed, see ‘160 paragraphs 16-18.
the following is not explicitly taught in ‘981 and ‘160:
“based on the marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible by the other components, initiating the loading of a trusted environment (TEE) in an application core (A-Core)” however ‘220 teaches initiating the loading of TEE after evaluating memory (i.e. marking the portion of the memory as non-accessible (i.e. untrusted) in paragraphs 29-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of system and methods for assembling and developing system on a chip (SOC) taught in ‘089 and ‘160 to include a means to utilize a trusted environment for applications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because automotive operation environments, often have strict boot performance requirements, a trusted portion of the system must be available first which requires many extra requirements see ‘220 paragraphs 2-3.
As to dependent claim 2, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the marking the portion of the memory component as non-accessible comprises: generating an instruction to mark the portion of the memory component as non- accessible; and providing the instruction to an input/output memory management unit (IOMMU), wherein the IOMMU is configured to mark the portion of the memory component as non-accessible” is taught in ‘160 paragraph 29.
As to dependent claim 3, “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining whether or not the SoC is entering a shutdown process” is shown in ‘160 Abstract;
“based on determining that the SoC is entering the shutdown process, removing the at least one configuration file from the portion of the memory component; and marking the portion of the memory component as accessible by other components” is disclosed in ‘160 paragraphs 29-32.
As to dependent claim 4, “The method according to claim 3, wherein the marking the portion of the memory component as accessible comprises: generating an instruction to mark the portion of the memory component as accessible; and providing the instruction to the IOMMU, wherein the IOMMU is configured to mark the portion of the memory component as accessible” is taught in ‘160 paragraphs 29-32.
As to dependent claim 5, “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: accessing the portion of the memory component to read the at least one configuration file; initializing, based on the at least one configuration file, an environment for loading an operational system (OS) associated with the configuration file; and loading the OS in the initialized environment” is shown in ‘160 paragraphs 31-32.
As to independent claim 8, this claim is directed to a system on chip (SoC) executing the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to dependent claims 9-12, these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claims 2-5; therefore, they are rejected along similar rationale.
As to independent claim 15, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with instructions executing the method of claim 1; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to dependent claims 16-19, these claims contain substantially similar subject matter as claims 2-5; therefore, they are rejected along similar rationale.
12. Claims 7 and14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiCorpo et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0159981 (hereinafter ‘981) in view of Dardis et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0050160 (hereinafter ‘160) in further view of Smith et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0358220 (hereinafter ‘220) in further view of Cheng U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0214419 (hereinafter ‘491).
As to dependent claim 7, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘981, ‘220, and ‘160: “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is implemented by a bootloader of the MCU upon executing a boot firmware stored in a boot read-only memory (ROM)” however ‘491 teaches using a bootloader in a ROM in paragraphs 7-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of system and methods for assembling and developing system on a chip (SOC) taught in ‘089, ‘220, and ‘160 to include a means to utilize a bootloader and ROM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to ensure security see ‘491 paragraphs 3-6.
As to dependent claim 14, this claim contains substantially similar subject matter as claim 7; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ellen Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 3 March 2026