DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 8/20/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of FRANCE 2309347 09/06/2023, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 8/20/2024, 12/24/2024 and 12/24/2024 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5-6 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: The examiner suggests the following corrections:Claim 5-6 and 17:
Please place the period after the parenthesis.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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: “an input configured to receive instructions that are received at an input terminal of said microcontroller or that are being processed by a code pointer of said microcontroller” in claim 1; and “a module for monitoring instructions of the microcontroller, the module including: an input configured to receive instructions that are received at an input terminal of said microcontroller or that are being processed by a code pointer of said microcontroller” in claim 13.
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.
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: (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); or (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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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.
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 13, 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is invoked by the limitation " an input configured to receive instructions". However, Applicant's Specification does not clearly link this function to any structure (e.g., hardware and any necessary algorithm) capable of performing it. See, e.g., Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the limitation "the input" renders the claim indefinite. See, e.g., In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Dependent claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected claim(s) in view of their dependence thereon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In particular, the specification does not describe “an input configured to receive instructions” as in claims 1 and 13. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims upon which they ultimately claim; the analysis provided above applies to each of the claims and are rejected as well.
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 overcomes the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims. Further, the claims must overcome the 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejection above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, 13-16, and 18-20, is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grocutt (US 2013/05125 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 18, Grocutt teaches:
“A module for monitoring instructions of a microcontroller, comprising: an input configured to receive instructions that are received at an input terminal of said microcontroller or that are being processed by a code pointer of said microcontroller (Grocutt, Fig. 1, ¶ 85 teaches microcontroller. Grocutt, Fig. 1, ¶ 90 teaches pointers of the microcontroller. Grocutt, Fig. 1, ¶ 96 teaches receiving instructions at the fault checking instructions circuitry); and circuitry configured to verify the instructions that are received on the input terminal of said microcontroller or that are being processed by the code pointer of said microcontroller (Grocutt, Figs. 1 and 7, ¶ 96 and 121-122 teaches receiving instructions at the fault checking instructions and checking if they are valid)”.
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 19, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 1 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the microcontroller is configured to process the instructions in response to the module verifying the instructions (Grocutt, Fig. 7, ¶ 121 teaches processing the normal branch instruction when it is within a given range)”.
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 20, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 1 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the microcontroller is set to an error mode in response the verification by the module indicating that the instructions are not valid (Grocutt, Fig. 7, ¶ 122 when the branch instruction is invalid a fault is created)”.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 1 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the circuitry is configured to verify the instructions by comparing at least one data element corresponding to said instructions with a reference data element (Grocutt, Fig. 7, ¶ 122 the branch instruction is compared with the assigned dummy function call return address as part of the process to verify it)”.
Regarding claim 7, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 1 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein said input terminal of said microcontroller is a terminal having a connection to a data bus (Grocutt, Fig. 1 depicts the data connection wires between elements)”.
Regarding claim 10, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 1 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein said instructions originate from a memory (Grocutt, Fig. 1 teaches that the instructions are fetched from the memory stacks)”.
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 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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grocutt in view of Wagner (US 2024/00193309 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 4 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein when the instructions are received on said input terminal of said microcontroller, the reference data element is data element (Grocutt, Fig. 7, ¶ 122 the branch instruction is compared with the assigned dummy function call return address as part of the process to verify it)”.
Grocutt does not, but in related art, Wagner teaches:
“‘0xFFFFFFFF’ (Wagner, ¶ 76 teaches utilizing a “one” state)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grocutt and Wagner, to modify the program checker of Grocutt to include the use of a particular address as taught in Wagner. The motivation to do so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Grocutt teaches:
“The module or method according to claim 10 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Grocutt does not, but in related art, Wagner teaches:
“wherein said memory is a flash-type RAM (Wagner, ¶ 56 and 76 teaches flash memory processing)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grocutt and Wagner, to modify the program checker of Grocutt to include the use of a particular address as taught in Wagner. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grocutt in view of Ruelle (US 2022/0327193 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 7 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Grocutt does not, but in related art, Ruelle teaches:
“wherein the data bus is a communication bus of Advanced High-performance Bus type (Ruelle, ¶ 33 teaches AHB implementation)”. Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grocutt and Ruelle, to modify the program checker of Grocutt to include the use of AHB as taught in Wagner. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grocutt in view of Conti (US 2007/0226795 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Grocutt teaches:
“The module according to claim 7 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Grucutt does not, but in related art Conti teaches:
“wherein the data bus is a communication bus of an Advanced eXtensible Interface (AXI) type (Conti, ¶ 167 teaches memory checking with an AXI bus system)”. Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grocutt and Conti, to modify the program checker of Grocutt to include the use of an AXI bus as taught in Conti. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grocutt in view of Vaassen (US 2024/0135040 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Grocutt teaches:
“The module or method according to claim 10 (Grocutt teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Grocutt does not, but in related art, Vaassen teaches:
wherein said memory is a non-volatile memory (Vaassen, ¶ 42 and 123 teaches verification unit for non-volatile memory)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Grocutt and Vaassen, to modify the program checker of Grocutt to include the NVM checking as taught in Vaassen. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST).
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached on (571) 272-3685. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435