DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Claims 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claims 2-4 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 07-25-2024.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. It is also noted that an attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve the foreign priority documents under the exchange program has failed based on the communication on February 14, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07-25-2024, 11-05-2024, and 06-02-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As per dependent claims 2-4, these claims are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Action May Be Required By Applicants
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may do one of the following:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function). For example, Applicant may amend the claimed term from “control unit” to “control logic/circuit/controller” as these alternative terms have been found by the courts to recite sufficient structure.
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2009/0287900 (hereinafter, “Kirscht”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0046613 (hereinafter, “Lai”) .
As per claims 1, 5, 1Kirscht discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a system memory (System memory; ¶ [003] ) in which a program and data are stored; and (Inter alia: algorithms, memory data access, system firmware (e.g., POST, BIOS, Operating system, etc; ¶s [002]-[009])
a control unit (memory controllers; ¶ [0044] ) configured to execute processing based on a BIOS (Basic Input Output System) and an OS (Operating System), the control unit being configured to execute; (Inter alia: algorithms, memory data access, system firmware (e.g., POST, BIOS, Operating system, etc; ¶s [002]-[009])
a first memory initialization process of, before the OS is started, executing initialization on an area with a partial capacity necessary for start-up of the OS in the system memory by processing of the BIOS, ( ¶ [0018] discloses a pre-memory initialization and Pre-POST/BIOS that occurs “prior to the operating system boot”. For example, steps 4-8 of Fig. 1 illustrates a 1st region being initialized with Pre-POST/ BIOS firmware before OS is started in step 22 of Fig. 1)
an OS start-up process of starting the OS by processing of the BIOS after the execution of the first memory initialization process, (Fig.1 illustrates where the OS is started in step 22 after the 1st region being initialized with Pre-POST/ BIOS firmware)
a second memory initialization process of, after the execution of the OS start-up process, executing initialization on a remaining area of the system memory other than the area with the partial capacity by processing of the BIOS. (Step 22 of Fig. 2 illustrates the start of OS that causes the initialization of the memory area comprising the ACPI firmware and memory hot add event. In other words, ¶ 0022] states “operating system starts utilizing the second memory region as if it were newly added physical memory” )
Kirscht does not distinctly disclose the OS start-up process including a display process on a display section.
However, Lai explicitly discloses that. In particular, Lai discloses the following:
a system memory (at least NVRAM 103; Fig 2) in which a program and data are stored; and (Inter alia: BIOS/OSD program; Fig 2 )
a control unit (computer control logic/computer 101) configured to execute processing based on a BIOS (Basic Input Output System) and an OS (Operating System), the control unit being configured to execute; (Inter alia: Inter alia: BIOS/OSD program; Fig 2)
a first memory initialization process of,(BIOS 103 of the NVRAM 103; Fig’s 1-2) before the OS is started, executing initialization on an area with a partial capacity necessary for start-up of the OS in the system memory by processing of the BIOS, (¶ [0023] discloses a BIOS to be executed allowing the user to interact with the computer system prior to “loading of the operating system”. )
an OS start-up process of starting the OS by processing of the BIOS after the execution of the first memory initialization process, the OS start-up process including a display process on a display section, and (inter alia: Lai discloses the process where the BIOS application 104 is executed that cause the computer system with “information stored in non-volatile memory 103 [that] is loaded into a frame buffer 205 of display 105. From the display buffer 205, the user note information is then displayed on display 105.” Alternatively, user information from OSD 102 may be accessed by a hot key; ¶s [0012]-[0014)
a second memory initialization process of, after the execution of the OS start-up process, executing initialization on a remaining area of the system memory other than the area with the partial capacity by processing of the BIOS. (Fig’s 1-2 discloses a separate reserved block memory area for storing the OSD program. Claim 3 states “ completing loading of the operating system…. and executing an on screen display (OSD) program, wherein the OSD program runs in a background of the device.” Alternatively, ¶ [0025] discloses “upon complete booting of an operating system “ and “The OSD program 102 re-loads the frame buffer with the user information and displays the user information on display 105 if necessary.” Therefore, the Office submits that the OSD program is executed after the complete boot of the operating system.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kirscht and Lai because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Lai’s teaching of displaying information during the boot process would enhance Kirscht's system by allowing the user to interact with various computer information without waiting for the OS to boot, thus enhancing user’s operability of the computer system.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2009/0287900 (hereinafter, “Kirscht”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0046613 (hereinafter, “Lai”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0325510 (hereinafter, “Tu”).
As per claim 2, Kirscht as modified discloses an information processing apparatus, wherein: the control unit executes the first memory initialization process and the second memory initialization process at a time of starting the OS in any of a case where the information processing apparatus is turned on for the first time, (Kirscht: memory initialization for first region and second region that includes ACPI event and memory hot and add event Fig. 1-2 ) & (Lai: booting bios from nvram 103 and booting OSD program from reserved block; Fig’s 1,2,4)
Kirscht as modified does not distinctly disclose the following:
a case where a configuration of the BIOS is changed, and a case where a capacity or a module of the system memory is changed; and
at a time of starting the OS normally, the control unit omits the first memory initialization process and the second memory initialization process and executes the OS start-up process as a normal OS start-up process.
However, Tu discloses the following:
a case where a configuration of the BIOS is changed, and a case where a capacity or a module of the system memory is changed; and (changing BIOS boot option by changing the boot memory area; Fig’s 1-3. For example, ¶ [0020] states “option 212 includes a setting item Set of “Boot Override” (changing a boot device)” )
at a time of starting the OS normally, the control unit omits the first memory initialization process and the second memory initialization process and executes the OS start-up process as a normal OS start-up process. (changing BIOS boot option by changing the boot memory area; Fig’s 1-3. For example, ¶ [0020] states “option 212 includes a setting item Set of “Boot Override” (changing a boot device)” )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kirscht as modified and Tu because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Tu’s teaching of having the user select among different boot options for loading a BIOS would enhance Kirscht's as modified system by allowing the user to enhance different BIOS features thus improving BIOS configurability for the computer system.
As per claim 3, Kirscht as modified discloses an information processing apparatus wherein: in the first memory initialization process, (TU: accessing a first boot option in a memory area that does not include security information; Fig’s 2-6) the control unit allows access to the area with the partial capacity, prohibits access to the remaining area, and executes the initialization; and (Lai: access to memory area 102 while the reserved block memory is accessed later) & (TU: abstract states “displaying a password input window when determining that the external boot device corresponding to received selection information is classified as the restricted device; and reading the external boot device to execute operating system program code when determining that received password information matches a preset password” )
in the second memory initialization process, (TU: accessing a second boot option in a memory area that does include security information; Fig’s 2-6) the control unit allows access to the remaining area and executes the initialization. (Lai: access to memory area 102 while the reserved block memory is accessed later) & (TU: abstract states “displaying a password input window when determining that the external boot device corresponding to received selection information is classified as the restricted device; and reading the external boot device to execute operating system program code when determining that received password information matches a preset password” )
As per claim 4, Kirscht as modified discloses an information processing apparatus wherein in the second memory initialization process, the control unit executes the initialization on the remaining area by a run-time process in parallel with normal processingof the OS start-up process and detects, by the OS, the remaining area as hot-insertion. (Kirscht: Step 22 of Fig. 2 illustrates the start of OS that causes the initialization of the memory area that includes BIOS , ACPI firmware and memory hot add event. )
Conclusion
With respect to any newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP §714.02 and § 2163.06. For example, when responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per independent claim 5, this claim is substantially equivalent to the system claim 1 because the claim is directed to a method for implementing the system claim . Therefore, for at least this reason, claim 5 stands rejected for similar reasons explained above.