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 1-3) in the reply filed on 2026-01-24 is acknowledged.
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.
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 first security element configured to receive a first signal” and “a second security element configured to receive a second signal” 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).
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.
Claims 1-3 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 first security element configured to receive a first signal” and “a second security element configured to receive a second signal” 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.
Claims 1-3 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. Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitations:
“driving a first individual unit”, and it’s unclear if this in reference to the previously recited “a first individual unit” or if there is a second unit with the same identifier;
“the third hardware element and the third software element”, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
“the first operation”, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim;
“to drivee”, and this word is undefined;
“together with the common unit …”, and it’s unclear if this is a new limitation since it’s indented or if the indentation is a scrivener error; and
the last limitation is not preceded by a conjunction, rendering unclear whether the claim should be interpreted in the conjunctive or disjunctive.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pohl et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160125202-A1, hereinafter “Pohl”).
With respect to independent claim 1, Pohl discloses a multi-project chip, the multi-project chip comprising:
a first individual unit including at least one of a first hardware element and a first software element {para. 0046: “a multicore processor having three processor cores 111, 112, and 113” and “a flash memory, is allocated to each processor core 111, 112, or 113” – the first unit is any of the three cores and corresponding memory}.
a second individual unit including at least one of a second hardware element and a second software element {para. 0046: “a multicore processor having three processor cores 111, 112, and 113” and “a flash memory, is allocated to each processor core 111, 112, or 113” – the second unit is any of the three cores and corresponding memory other than the first unit}.
a common unit including at least one of the third hardware element and the third software element {para. 0046: “Security processor unit 120 includes a processor core 121 and a local memory having a RAM memory 122 and a ROM memory 123”}.
a first security element configured to receive a first signal for driving a first individual unit {paras. 0046-0048 & Fig. 1: “bus 117” has data lines to “three processor cores 111, 112, and 113”}.
a second security element configured to receive a second signal for driving the second individual unit {paras. 0046-0048 & Fig. 1: “bus 117” has data lines to “three processor cores 111, 112, and 113”}.
wherein the first security element allows the first individual unit to drive together with the common unit to execute the first operation upon receiving the first signal {para. 0051: “respective applications that are executed in processor cores 111, 112, 113 of processor unit 110 and that are to produce or process the security-critical data instruct security processor unit 120 to execute particular security-critical processes”; further note that “allows” does not require steps to be performed nor does it limit a claim to a particular structure}.
wherein the second security element allows the second individual unit to drivee together with the common unit to execute a second operation upon receiving the second signal {para. 0051: “respective applications that are executed in processor cores 111, 112, 113 of processor unit 110 and that are to produce or process the security-critical data instruct security processor unit 120 to execute particular security-critical processes”; further note that “allows” does not require steps to be performed nor does it limit a claim to a particular structure}.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Pohl discloses wherein the first individual unit is not driven with the second individual unit when executing the first operation {paras. 0053-0066: at any given “time t”, only one process for a processor core is handled at a time, e.g., “at time t2 security processor unit 120 interrupts the execution of first process 210 and instead executes second process 220”}.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Pohl discloses wherein even if the first individual unit is driven together with the second individual unit, the first operation cannot be executed {para. 0051: “Security processor unit 120 executes the various security-critical processes”, i.e., not the processor cores themselves}.
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