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
The response filed 2/12/2026 was received and considered.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-19 are pending.
Interview Attempt
The Examiner left a voicemail message with Applicant’s representative on 4/16/2026 requesting an interview to discuss outstanding issues, but an interview has not been held.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 7-8, Entry of Amendments, Allowable Subject Matter) are persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims introduce new indefiniteness issues addressed in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 4, “a legality” should be replaced with “a first legality”. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 inherit the deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 11, the limitation “the second legality check” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claims 2-4 and 6-8 inherit the deficiency.
Regarding claim 9, line 22, the limitation “the second key” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claims 10 and 12-17 inherit the deficiency.
Regarding claim 10, line 2, the limitation “a second key” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if “a second key” refers to the same “second key” as recited in claim 10 or a different second key.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18:
WO 2013036097 A1 (MOHD ANUAR MAT ISA et al.) teaches informing the client machine that the client machine is not trusted (¶40).
US 20100122076 A1 (Witty; Nigel Martin) teaches receiving a first reply (Witty, ¶¶89-92).
US 20180091530 A1 (Rook; Derek) teaches ensuring that a first reply passes a second legality check (Rook, ¶50).
US 11392703 B2 (Ghetie; Sergiu D et al.) (Fig. 5) shows updating firmware from a recovery portion of memory if validation of the primary portion fails.
However, the prior art – individually, or in a reasonable combination – fails to teach when the first reply signal does not pass the second legality check, commanding the root device to update firmware of the first device, when considered in combination with the claimed invention as a whole.
Claim 19 inherits allowable subject matter.
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 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 MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Colin can be reached on 571-272-38623862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights