CTFR 18/852,829 CTFR 78590 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The amendment of claims 1-20, submitted on 3/6/2026, is acknowledged and considered. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are pending. Response to Arguments 3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments are directed towards the amendment, which is moot because claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are now rejected under Haghighat, et al, [US 20210263779] and Ito, et al. [US 20210240821]. Claim Objections 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 4. Claim s 7-10, 13, 15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim (s) 1-6, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat, et al, [US 20210263779] in view of Ito, et al. [US 20210240821] . As per claim 1: Haghighat, et al. teaches an image sensor comprising: a first register storing a first key; [Haghighat: para 0249; computing device fetches FaaS-related information of at least one function, tag keys to functions with multi-key total memory encryption, detect image-related information, and launch an image operation in advance based on the detected image-related information. Para 1130; authentication key register] a second register storing a first counter value and a second counter value that is distinct from the first counter value ; [Haghighat: para 0196, 0202; computing device to generate a first snapshot of a counter value associated with execution of a function in a container, generate a second snapshot of the counter value associated with execution of the function in the container. Each snaphot (i.e. first, second) has respective counter values, which suggest the first counter value and second counter value] a communication interface configured to communicate with a host device; and [Haghighat: para 0155; one or more central processing units (e.g., host processor) uses a FaaS executor to execute a first set of functions] a controller configured to control the communication interface to receive a request from the host device, [Haghighat: para 0193-0194; host processor suggest host device, features are selected from the group comprising host processor features, operating system features, virtual machine features and accelerator features. FIG. 7A shows a FaaS compute node in which various virtual power performance monitoring unit events that is for monitoring via an architectural interface that enables nested monitoring. Para 1135; detects one or more service requests to enqueue a capability using a new instruction, that specifies the capability to be sent as well as its intended destination. ENQCAP block identifies the appropriate destination queue for the extracted information. For example, this procedure involve translating the service ID to the ID of a processor that has been allocated to host the service. Each service may be locked to one or more processors, or it may be possible to invoke the service on any processor in a system] ** change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device . [**rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below] Haghighat suggest a second register storing a first counter value and a second counter value that is distinct from the first counter value by a first snapshot of a counter value and a second snapshot of the counter value associated with execution of the function in the container. Each snaphot (i.e. first, second) has respective counter values, which suggest the first counter value and second counter value [Haghighat: para 0196, 0202]. However, Haghighat did not clearly include “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device”. Ito a detection system including a sensor and the MAC value is information for authenticating that a person who transmits the sensor data is legitimate and confirming authenticity of the sensor data, that is, that the sensor data has not been tampered with. When the controller receives the MAC value from the sensor, the controller calculates a MAC value by using the sensor data received up to (N−1) times, and compares this MAC value with the MAC value received from the sensor to perform verification. Hence, one would be motivated to “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device”, to authenticate the sensor and detects that the sensor data has not been tampered with [Ito: para 0020-0023]. Ito further explains the calculation unit calculates tampering detection information from which non-tampering of the sensor data is verifiable, by using the sensor data [Ito: para 0027]. This MAC value is calculated by using a common key that is shared by the sensor and the controller. Further, when the calculation unit has calculated the MAC value, the counting unit updates the counter value in the storage unit. When the transmission unit transmits the sensor data or the MAC value of a T-th time, the calculation unit 2b calculates, at T=kN (k=1, 2, . . . ), the MAC value by using the sensor data at T=kN−1 and a current counter value. [Ito: para 0030-0031]. The calculation unit calculates the MAC value by using the transmission history information (T−1) and the current counter value, at T=N. Further, when the calculation unit has calculated the MAC value, the counting unit updates the counter value in the storage unit [Ito: para 0036]. As such, the history and current counter value “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value”, and thus, suggest “generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ito with Haghighat to teach “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device” for the reason to authenticate the sensor and detects that the sensor data has not been tampered with [Ito: para 0020-0023]. Claim 2: Haghighat: para 0930, 1125 [identifying function versions in memory using message authentication code (MAC)] ; discussing the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the request is a read request regarding setting information of the image sensor from the host device, wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the message authentication code and image data to the host device, and wherein the message authentication code is one part of an overall authentication with respect to the image data. [Haghighat: para 0155, 0249; one or more central processing units (e.g., host processor) execute a first set of functions, detect image-related information and launch an image operation in advance based on the detected image-related information] Claim 3: Haghighat: para 0196, 0202 in view of Ito: para 0027-0036 [suggesting “change the first counter value to generate the updated counter value in response to receiving the read request”, under the same pretext and motivation as in claim 1] ; discussing the image sensor according to claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to change the first counter value to generate the updated counter value in response to receiving the read request. Claim 4: Haghighat: para 0202; discussing the image sensor according to claim 2, wherein the first counter value is a read counter value. Claim 5: Haghighat: para 0202, 0933 [launching a function, history of usage of the function, identifying function versions in memory using message authentication code (MAC), prefetching data related to the function, and storing the function] ; discussing the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the request is a write request from the host device, and wherein the message authentication code is one part of an overall authentication with respect to the write request sent from the host device. Claim 6: Haghighat: para 0202; discussing the image sensor according to claim 5, wherein the second counter value is a write counter value. Claim 7: Objected Claim 8: Objected Claim 9: Objected Claim 10: Objected As per claim 11: Haghighat, et al. teaches a host device comprising: a first register storing a first key; [Haghighat: para 1130; authentication key register] a second register storing a counter value and a second counter value that is distinct from the first counter value ; [Haghighat: para 0196, 0202; computing device to generate a first snapshot of a counter value associated with execution of a function in a container, generate a second snapshot of the counter value associated with execution of the function in the container. Each snaphot (i.e. first, second) has respective counter values, which suggest the first counter value and second counter value] a communication interface configured to communicate with an image sensor; and [Haghighat: para 0193-0194; host processor suggest host device, features are selected from the group comprising host processor features, operating system features, virtual machine features and accelerator features. FIG. 7A shows a FaaS compute node in which various virtual power performance monitoring unit events that is for monitoring via an architectural interface that enables nested monitoring. Para 0249; computing device fetches FaaS-related information of at least one function, tag keys to functions with multi-key total memory encryption, detect image-related information, and launch an image operation in advance based on the detected image-related information] a controller configured to control the communication interface to transmit a request to the image sensor, [Haghighat: para 1135; detects one or more service requests to enqueue a capability using a new instruction, that specifies the capability to be sent as well as its intended destination. ENQCAP block identifies the appropriate destination queue for the extracted information. For example, this procedure involve translating the service ID to the ID of a processor that has been allocated to host the service. Each service may be locked to one or more processors, or it may be possible to invoke the service on any processor in a system] ** change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to transmitting the request to the image sensor. [**rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below] Haghighat suggest a second register storing a first counter value and a second counter value that is distinct from the first counter value by a first snapshot of a counter value and a second snapshot of the counter value associated with execution of the function in the container. Each snaphot (i.e. first, second) has respective counter values, which suggest the first counter value and second counter value [Haghighat: para 0196, 0202]. However, Haghighat did not clearly include “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to transmitting the request to the image sensor”. Ito a detection system including a sensor and the MAC value is information for authenticating that a person who transmits the sensor data is legitimate and confirming authenticity of the sensor data, that is, that the sensor data has not been tampered with. When the controller receives the MAC value from the sensor, the controller calculates a MAC value by using the sensor data received up to (N−1) times, and compares this MAC value with the MAC value received from the sensor to perform verification. Hence, one would be motivated to “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to transmitting the request to the image sensor”, to authenticate the sensor and detects that the sensor data has not been tampered with [Ito: para 0020-0023]. Ito further explains the calculation unit calculates tampering detection information from which non-tampering of the sensor data is verifiable, by using the sensor data [Ito: para 0027]. This MAC value is calculated by using a common key that is shared by the sensor and the controller. Further, when the calculation unit has calculated the MAC value, the counting unit updates the counter value in the storage unit. When the transmission unit transmits the sensor data or the MAC value of a T-th time, the calculation unit 2b calculates, at T=kN (k=1, 2, . . . ), the MAC value by using the sensor data at T=kN−1 and a current counter value. [Ito: para 0030-0031]. The calculation unit calculates the MAC value by using the transmission history information (T−1) and the current counter value, at T=N. Further, when the calculation unit has calculated the MAC value, the counting unit updates the counter value in the storage unit [Ito: para 0036]. As such, the history and current counter value “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value”, and thus, suggest “generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to transmitting the request to the image sensor”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ito with Haghighat to teach “change one of the first counter value or the second counter value to generate an updated counter value, and generate a message authentication code based on the first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device” for the reason to authenticate the sensor and detects that the sensor data has not been tampered with [Ito: para 0020-0023]. Claim 12: Haghighat: para 0930-0933, 1125 [launching a function, history of usage of the function, identifying function versions in memory using message authentication code (MAC), prefetching data related to the function, and storing the function] ; discussing the host device according to claim 11, wherein the request is a read request regarding setting information of the image sensor, and wherein the message authentication code is one part of an overall authentication with respect to image data that is received from the image sensor. Claim 13: Objected Claim 14: Haghighat: para 0202; discussing the host device according to claim 12, wherein the first counter value is a read counter value. Claim 15: Objected Claim 16: Haghighat: para 0202, 0933 [launching a function, history of usage of the function, identifying function versions in memory using message authentication code (MAC), prefetching data related to the function, and storing the function] ; discussing the host device according to claim 11, wherein the request is a write request to the image sensor, wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the message authentication code to the image sensor, and wherein the message authentication code is one part of an overall authentication with respect to the write request. Claim 17: Objected Claim 18: Haghighat: para 0202; discussing the host device according to claim 16, wherein the second counter value is a write counter value. Claim 19: Haghighat: para 0669 in view of Ito: para 0046, 0055-0057 [suggesting “to send the updated counter value to the host device in response to sending the error notification to the host device”, under the same pretext and motivation as in claim 1] ; discussing the host device according to claim 11, wherein the controller is further configured to send the updated counter value to a second host device. As per claim 20: Haghighat, et al. teaches a method comprising: controlling, with a controller of an image sensor [Haghighat: para 0249; computing device fetches FaaS-related information of at least one function, tag keys to functions with multi-key total memory encryption, detect image-related information, and launch an image operation in advance based on the detected image-related information] , a communication interface to receive a request from a host device; [Haghighat: para 1135; detects one or more service requests to enqueue a capability using a new instruction, that specifies the capability to be sent as well as its intended destination. ENQCAP block identifies the appropriate destination queue for the extracted information. For example, this procedure involve translating the service ID to the ID of a processor that has been allocated to host the service. Each service may be locked to one or more processors, or it may be possible to invoke the service on any processor in a system] **changing, with the controller, one of a first counter value or a second counter value to generate an updated counter value [**rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below] , the second counter value is distinct from the first counter value ; and [Haghighat: para 0196, 0202; computing device to generate a first snapshot of a counter value associated with execution of a function in a container, generate a second snapshot of the counter value associated with execution of the function in the container. Each snaphot (i.e. first, second) has respective counter values, which suggest the first counter value and second counter value] **generating, with the controller, a message authentication code based on a first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device . [**rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below] Haghighat suggest a second register storing a first counter value and a second counter value that is distinct from the first counter value by a first snapshot of a counter value and a second snapshot of the counter value associated with execution of the function in the container. Each snaphot (i.e. first, second) has respective counter values, which suggest the first counter value and second counter value [Haghighat: para 0196, 0202]. However, Haghighat did not clearly include “changing, with the controller, one of a first counter value or a second counter value to generate an updated counter value” and “generating, with the controller, a message authentication code based on a first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device”. Ito a detection system including a sensor and the MAC value is information for authenticating that a person who transmits the sensor data is legitimate and confirming authenticity of the sensor data, that is, that the sensor data has not been tampered with. When the controller receives the MAC value from the sensor, the controller calculates a MAC value by using the sensor data received up to (N−1) times, and compares this MAC value with the MAC value received from the sensor to perform verification. Hence, one would be motivated to “changing, with the controller, one of a first counter value or a second counter value to generate an updated counter value” and “generating, with the controller, a message authentication code based on a first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device”, to authenticate the sensor and detects that the sensor data has not been tampered with [Ito: para 0020-0023]. Ito further explains the calculation unit calculates tampering detection information from which non-tampering of the sensor data is verifiable, by using the sensor data [Ito: para 0027]. This MAC value is calculated by using a common key that is shared by the sensor and the controller. Further, when the calculation unit has calculated the MAC value, the counting unit updates the counter value in the storage unit. When the transmission unit transmits the sensor data or the MAC value of a T-th time, the calculation unit 2b calculates, at T=kN (k=1, 2, . . . ), the MAC value by using the sensor data at T=kN−1 and a current counter value. [Ito: para 0030-0031]. The calculation unit calculates the MAC value by using the transmission history information (T−1) and the current counter value, at T=N. Further, when the calculation unit has calculated the MAC value, the counting unit updates the counter value in the storage unit [Ito: para 0036]. As such, the history and current counter value “changing, with the controller, one of a first counter value or a second counter value to generate an updated counter value”, and thus, suggest “generating, with the controller, a message authentication code based on a first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ito with Haghighat to teach “changing, with the controller, one of a first counter value or a second counter value to generate an updated counter value” and “generating, with the controller, a message authentication code based on a first key and the updated counter value in response to receiving the request from the host device” for the reason to authenticate the sensor and detects that the sensor data has not been tampered with [Ito: para 0020-0023]. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Leynna Truvan whose telephone number is (571)272-3851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM, 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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. Leynna Truvan Examiner Art Unit 2435 /L.TT/Examiner, Art Unit 2435 /EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 2 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 3 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 4 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 5 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 6 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 7 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 8 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 9 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 10 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 11 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 12 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 13 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 14 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 15 Art Unit: 2435 Application/Control Number: 18/852,829 Page 16 Art Unit: 2435
Prosecution Insights