DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 07/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been previously canceled. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed on 07/29/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to Applicant’s argument on page 8 of Remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations “trust domain manager” and “secure startup service module” are generic placeholders (non-structural terms) that are not preceded by a structural modifier, and the generic placeholders are coupled with functional languages (for example, “to manage…”, “to establish…”, “to: receive…verify…indicate…” respectively) without reciting sufficient structures to achieve the functions. Thus, these limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Note that although the trust domain manager is part of the hardware processor core, the term does not include sufficient structure to achieve the function recited. However, upon further consideration, the limitation “provisioning agent” is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of Remarks regarding Yitbarek not appear to teach the limitations of the I/O device authenticating the trust domain manager based on information received from the provisioning agent, the I/O device establishing a second secure connection with a secure startup service module and using the second secure connection to complete an attestation of the trust domain manager as required by claim 21, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim only recites “authenticate the trust domain manager based on information received from the provisioning agent during establishment of the first secure connection” without specifying which element received the information. Yitbarek teaches trusted agent circuitry 1008 which may form a portion of I/O subsystem 124 establishing a secure channel with TD/TEE circuitry 1014 by exchanging a shared secret key (e.g., [0097], [0124]). Yitbarek also teaches trusted agent circuitry 1008 authenticating TIO device circuitry 1024 of processor 120 via TD/TEE 1014, and the authentication is based on the shared key received from the TD/TEE 1014 because the device configuration report used to perform the authentication is transmitted via the secure channel established by the shared key (e.g., [0134]-[0135]), that is, without the shared key, the secure connection cannot be established and the authentication cannot be performed since the configuration report cannot be transmitted. Thus, Yitbarek teaches authenticate the trust domain manager based on information received from the provisioning agent during establishment of the first secure connection as recited in the claim. In addition, Yitbarek teaches the trusted agent circuitry 1008 which forms a portion of the I/O subsystem 124 establishing a secure connection with host operating system 1006 of host partition 1002 that forms a portion of the processor 120, and the host operating system 1006 sending a device certificate or identification data to the trusted agent circuitry 1008 for the trusted agent circuitry 1008 to perform an attestation of the TIO device circuitry 1024 of the processor (e.g., [0097], [0108], [0118]-[0119], [0125]-[0126]), thus, Yitbarek teaches the I/O device establishing a second secure connection with a secure startup service module of the processor and using the second secure connection to complete an attestation of the trust domain manager as required by the claim. Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument that the remaining dependent claims are patentable because they depend from allowable independent claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees since the base claims from which they depend are not in condition for allowance.
Examiner would like to point out that although there are differences between Applicant's invention and the cited prior arts, the current claims have not successfully captured these differences to render the claims distinguishable from the cited prior arts, further clarification is needed to fully capture the inventive concept.
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 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 trust domain manager to…” and “the secure startup service module is to…” as recited in claim 36, “the secure startup service module to…” as recited in claim 39.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: e.g., figs. 1-2, 5 and [0016]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], [0044]-[0046], [0077]-[0080] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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.
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 21-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “the processor” in line 12, however it is unclear whether it refers to “a processor” in line 2 of claim 21, “a processor” in lines 7-8 of claim 21, or some other processor. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 21, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 31, 33-34, 36, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yitbarek et al. (US 2020/0145419).
Claim 21, Yitbarek teaches:
An apparatus comprising:
a hardware processor core of a processor; (e.g., fig. 1)
circuitry at an input/output (I/O) device, the circuitry to:
establish, via a first communication link, a first secure connection with a provisioning agent, the provisioning agent included in hardware isolated trust domain elements managed by a trust domain manager, the trust domain manager included in the hardware processor core of a processor; (e.g., [0097], “the trusted agent circuitry 1008…may form a portion of…the I/O subsystem 124” [0097], “the TEE circuitry 1014…may form a portion of the processor 120” [0097], “the TIO device circuitry 1024 may form a portion of the processor 120” [0104], “Each of the TDs 1014 may be embodied as a trust domain, virtual machine, virtual network function (VNF), guest operating system, or other trusted environment of the computing device 100. Each TD 1014 is isolated or otherwise protected” [0111], “assigns a TIO device 1024 to the TD 1014” [0082], “the TEE…may perform trusted I/O with the TIO device…the TIO device…may allow the TEE…to access certain unlocked configuration registers, and may prevent the TEE…from accessing locked configuration registers” [0124], “the trusted agent 1008 establishes a secure channel with a TD 1014”)
authenticate the trust domain manager based on information received from the provisioning agent during establishment of the first secure connection; (e.g., [0124], “the trusted agent 1008 establishes a secure channel with a TD 1014…the trusted agent 1008 and the TD 1014 perform an authenticated key agreement protocol, such as an authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange. After performing the exchange, both the trusted agent 1008 and the TD 1014 possess a shared secret key. The shared key may be used to protect a secure communication channel between the trusted agent 1008 and the TD 1014” [0134], “The trusted agent 1008 verifies a device configuration report…The device configuration report may be received via the secure channel established between the TD 1014 and the trusted agent 1008” [0135], “verifies the device configuration of the TIO device 1024 as indicated in the device configuration report. As described above, the trusted agent 1008 verifies the integrity of the device configuration report and prevents replay attacks…perform policy-based evaluations or other evaluations of the device configuration report to determine whether to proceed with trusted I/O using the TIO device 1024…verify a device ID, firmware ID, and/or version (e.g., firmware version, device revision, etc.) indicated in the device configuration report”)
establish, via a second communication link, a second secure connection with a secure startup service module of the processor; and use the second secure connection to complete an attestation of the trust domain manager based on information received from the secure startup service module after establishment of the second secure connection. (e.g., [0097], “the trusted agent circuitry 1008…may form a portion of…the I/O subsystem 124” [0097], “the host partition circuitry 1002…may form a portion of the processor 120” [0097], “the TIO device circuitry 1024 may form a portion of the processor 120” [0108], “the VMM 1020, the host operating system 1006, and/or the host device driver 1004 may send a request to the trusted agent 1008 that identifies the current TIO device 1024. The request may include a device certificate or other identification data that may be used by the trusted agent 1008 to authenticate and provision the TIO device 1024” [0118], “the trusted agent 1008 receives a request to authenticate a TIO device 1024 from the host operating system 1006. The request may be sent during device enumeration during initial boot and/or in response to a device being added to the computing device (e.g., a hotplug event). As described above, the request may include a device certificate associated with the TIO device 1024” [0119], “the trusted agent 1008 authenticates the TIO device 1024 using the provided device certificate” [0125], “the trusted agent 1008 receives a device configuration report from the host operating system 1006. As described above, the device configuration report includes data that represents the identity and/or current configuration of the TIO device 1024” [0126], “the trusted agent 1008 verifies the device configuration report” [0129], “the trusted agent 1008 waits for the TD 1014 to release the TIO device 1024” [0130], “the trusted agent 1008 removes the binding between the TD 1014 and the TIO device 1024…As described above, removing the binding may allow the TIO device 1024 to be reassigned to a TD 1014 in the future…After removing the binding, the method 1300 loops back to block 1306, in which the trusted agent 1008 may verify additional TIO devices 1024”)
Claim 23, Yitbarek teaches:
wherein the information received from the provisioning agent includes a certificate for the provisioning agent and a trust domain report for the trust domain manager. (e.g., [0124], [0134]-[0135])
Claim 24, Yitbarek teaches:
send, to the secure startup service module via the second secure connection, a request to verify the trust domain report included in the certificate received from the provisioning agent, wherein the secure startup service module is to verify the trust domain report via use of an integrity check of a message authentication code in the trust domain report; and receive an indication in the information received from the secure startup service module after establishment of the second secure connection that the trust domain report has been verified to enable the I/O device to complete the attestation of the trust domain manager. (e.g., [0108], [0118]-[0119], [0125]-[0126])
Claim 26, this claim is directed to a method containing similar limitations as recited in claim 21 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim 28, this claim is directed to a method containing similar limitations as recited in claim 23 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim 29, this claim is directed to a method containing similar limitations as recited in claim 24 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 31, this claim is directed to at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing similar limitations as recited in claim 21 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim 33, this claim is directed to at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing similar limitations as recited in claim 23 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim 34, this claim is directed to at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium containing similar limitations as recited in claim 24 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 36, Yitbarek teaches:
A system comprising:
a hardware processor core of a processor to include a trust domain manager to manage a plurality of hardware isolated trust domain elements that include at least one virtual machine and a provisioning agent; a first communication link between the hardware processor core and an input/output (I/O) device, wherein the provisioning agent is to establish a first secure connection through the first communication link to enable the I/O device to authenticate the trust domain manager based on information received from the provisioning agent during establishment of the first secure connection; (e.g., [0097], “the trusted agent circuitry 1008…may form a portion of…the I/O subsystem 124” [0097], “the TEE circuitry 1014…may form a portion of the processor 120” [0097], “the TIO device circuitry 1024 may form a portion of the processor 120” [0104], “Each of the TDs 1014 may be embodied as a trust domain, virtual machine, virtual network function (VNF), guest operating system, or other trusted environment of the computing device 100. Each TD 1014 is isolated or otherwise protected” [0111], “assigns a TIO device 1024 to the TD 1014” [0082], “the TEE…may perform trusted I/O with the TIO device…the TIO device…may allow the TEE…to access certain unlocked configuration registers, and may prevent the TEE…from accessing locked configuration registers” [0124], “the trusted agent 1008 establishes a secure channel with a TD 1014…the trusted agent 1008 and the TD 1014 perform an authenticated key agreement protocol, such as an authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange. After performing the exchange, both the trusted agent 1008 and the TD 1014 possess a shared secret key. The shared key may be used to protect a secure communication channel between the trusted agent 1008 and the TD 1014” [0134], “The trusted agent 1008 verifies a device configuration report…The device configuration report may be received via the secure channel established between the TD 1014 and the trusted agent 1008” [0135], “verifies the device configuration of the TIO device 1024 as indicated in the device configuration report. As described above, the trusted agent 1008 verifies the integrity of the device configuration report and prevents replay attacks…perform policy-based evaluations or other evaluations of the device configuration report to determine whether to proceed with trusted I/O using the TIO device 1024…verify a device ID, firmware ID, and/or version (e.g., firmware version, device revision, etc.) indicated in the device configuration report”)
secure startup service module of the processor; and a second communication link between the hardware processor core and the I/O device, wherein the secure startup service module is to establish a second secure connection through the second communication link to enable the I/O device to complete an attestation of the trust domain manager based on information received from the secure startup service module after establishment of the second secure connection. (e.g., [0097], “the trusted agent circuitry 1008…may form a portion of…the I/O subsystem 124” [0097], “the host partition circuitry 1002…may form a portion of the processor 120” [0097], “the TIO device circuitry 1024 may form a portion of the processor 120” [0108], “the VMM 1020, the host operating system 1006, and/or the host device driver 1004 may send a request to the trusted agent 1008 that identifies the current TIO device 1024. The request may include a device certificate or other identification data that may be used by the trusted agent 1008 to authenticate and provision the TIO device 1024” [0118], “the trusted agent 1008 receives a request to authenticate a TIO device 1024 from the host operating system 1006. The request may be sent during device enumeration during initial boot and/or in response to a device being added to the computing device (e.g., a hotplug event). As described above, the request may include a device certificate associated with the TIO device 1024” [0119], “the trusted agent 1008 authenticates the TIO device 1024 using the provided device certificate” [0125], “the trusted agent 1008 receives a device configuration report from the host operating system 1006. As described above, the device configuration report includes data that represents the identity and/or current configuration of the TIO device 1024” [0126], “the trusted agent 1008 verifies the device configuration report” [0129], “the trusted agent 1008 waits for the TD 1014 to release the TIO device 1024” [0130], “the trusted agent 1008 removes the binding between the TD 1014 and the TIO device 1024…As described above, removing the binding may allow the TIO device 1024 to be reassigned to a TD 1014 in the future…After removing the binding, the method 1300 loops back to block 1306, in which the trusted agent 1008 may verify additional TIO devices 1024”)
Claim 38, this claim is directed to a system containing similar limitations as recited in claim 23 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim 39, this claim is directed to a system containing similar limitations as recited in claim 24 and is rejected for similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 22, 27, 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yitbarek et al. (US 2020/0145419) in view of Gurumurthi et al. (US 2022/0100606).
Claim 22, Yitbarek teaches wherein the first secure connection and the second secure connection are separately established (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Gurumurthi teaches:
established according to a Secure Protocol and Data Model (SPDM) specification. (e.g., [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Gurumurthi into the invention of Yitbarek, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of exchanging data between computing entities in a secure manner (Gurumurthi [0032]).
Claim 27, this claim is directed to a method containing similar limitations as recited in claim 22 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 32, this claim is directed to at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium containing similar limitations as recited in claim 22 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 37, this claim is directed to a system containing similar limitations as recited in claim 22 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claims 25, 30, 35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yitbarek et al. (US 2020/0145419) in view of Ghetie (US 2021/0026966).
Claim 25, Yitbarek teaches the first communication link to operate according to at least one of a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) specification or a Compute Express Link (CXL) specification (e.g., [0119]), the second communication link (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Ghetie teaches:
communication link to operate according to a System Management Bus (SMBus) specification. (e.g., [0022], [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Ghetie into the invention of Yitbarek, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of preventing permanent denial of service attacks (Ghetie [0033]).
Claim 30, this claim is directed to a method containing similar limitations as recited in claim 25 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 35, this claim is directed to at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium containing similar limitations as recited in claim 25 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
Claim 40, this claim is directed to a system containing similar limitations as recited in claim 25 and is rejected using the same rationale to combine the references.
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 AMIE C LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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, GELAGAY SHEWAYE can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/AMIE C. LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
