Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 8/26/2026. Claim 10 was amended. Claims 11-20 were added. Claims 1-20 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 8/26/2026, to claim(s) 10 correcting the claim to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium” are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 10 under 101, as filed in (6) of the Non-Final Office action filed 7/1/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims under Mishra (US 20190163649 A1), in view of Pekny (US 20090276561 A1) have been considered, and are found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on page(s) 8 of the Remarks, filed 8/26/2026, the cited prior art fail to teach or suggest “setting a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes based on the communication mode information written in the communications information region” because “The cited configuration register in Mishra merely stores information that affects operation of a Register-0 Write command. Mishra does not disclose a register having a communication information region that stores communication mode information and, based on that stored communication mode information, sets different register definitions for the same register space. Rather, Mishra changes how a command is interpreted, not how a register space is defined”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in [0051]-[0052] of Mishra, it is disclosed that an additional configuration register may be set to select between different modes of operation of a Register-0 Write command. In the legacy mode of [0051], the seven bits following D7 correspond to actual 7-bit data such that the command code itself contains the data of interest. In contrast, in the address-extension mode of [0052], the configuration register is set such that those same seven bits correspond to a 7-bit address, with one or more additional payload bytes following the command. Thus, the value stores in Mishra’s configuration register determines the definition assigned to the same bit/register space. Therefore, Mishra does more than merely alter an ancillary manner in which a command is interpreted, Mishra’s configuration information determines how the same register/command space is defined and used for the selected operating mode. Therefore, Applicant’s distinction between “changing how a command is interpreted” and “how a register space is defined” is not persuasive because, in Mishra, the change in interpretation is itself accomplished by assigning different meanings and functions to the same bit space according to the identified mode in the configuration register.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, the claim recites “wherein the register definition is not changed in a case where a command in a communication mode other than the communication mode the setting”. It is unclear what is intended by this limitation, as there appears to be missing language connecting “the communication mode” and “the setting”.
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 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20190163649 A1), in view of Pekny (US 20090276561 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mishra teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A data processing apparatus comprising:
a register including, as an address region, a setting region that stores setting information transmitted from a host, (Mishra; [0057]: The configuration register may be located within a user defined register space: 0x01 to 0x1C in hexadecimal. For example, register location 0x18 may be used as the configuration register)
a communication information region that stores communication information with the host; and (Mishra; [0056]: the configuration register may be defined at location 0x18 and the page-address register may be defined at location 0x19 in the register space (i.e., communication information))
a communication unit that performs register communication between the host and the register, (Mishra; [0056]: FIG. 6 is a diagram of an RFFE register space 600 having a configuration register and a page-address register (i.e., communication with register))
wherein the data processing apparatus writes communication mode information indicating at least one communication mode of the register communication in the communication information region in a case where the communication mode information is received from the host, and (Mishra; [0051]: In an aspect, a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time. In an example, the configuration register may be set to indicate that the Register-0 Write command will be used in a legacy manner (legacy mode) (i.e., communication mode))
sets a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes based on the communication mode information written in the communication information region. (Mishra; [0051]: In an aspect, a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time. In an example, the configuration register may be set to indicate that the Register-0 Write command will be used in a legacy manner (legacy mode) (i.e., sets a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes ))
Mishra does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
a security data region that stores security data for the setting information, and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pekny discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
a security data region that stores security data for the setting information, and (Pekny; [0030]: the protected mode access register 28 is essentially a hidden register in the NAND memory device (i.e. security data region))
Pekny is combinable with Mishra because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mishra to incorporate a register portion for secured information as in Pekny in order to improve the security of the system by provisioning a portion of the register for protected information.
Regarding claim 2, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication mode is any one of a mode in which encrypted data including the setting information is exchanged, a mode in which an error detection code related to the setting information is exchanged, a mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged, and a mode in which authentication data is exchanged. (Mishra; [0053]: the additional command codes may indicate more than 16 bytes of register reads and writes using only one datagram (Register-0 Write command) Moreover, the additional command codes may indicate electrical signaling beyond what is currently defined in the RFFE/SPMI protocol. The signaling may include interrupt signaling, error signaling, flow control signaling, etc (i.e., a mode in which an error detection code related to the setting information is exchanged))
Regarding claim 4, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 2.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the mode in which an error detection code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, the error detection code is stored in the security data, and the setting information targeted for the error detection code is stored in the setting region. (Mishra; [0053]: the additional command codes may indicate more than 16 bytes of register reads and writes using only one datagram (Register-0 Write command) Moreover, the additional command codes may indicate electrical signaling beyond what is currently defined in the RFFE/SPMI protocol. The signaling may include interrupt signaling, error signaling, flow control signaling, etc (i.e., error detection code))
Regarding claim 7, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the set register definition is not changed until a command indicating end of the communication mode is received from the host. (Mishra; [0051]: a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time (i.e., set register definition is not changed))
Regarding claim 8, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a setting unit in which whether or not the communication mode is supported is set, wherein the register definition is not changed in a case where a command in a communication mode other than the communication mode set in the setting unit is received. (Mishra; [0051]: a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time (i.e., set register definition is not changed))
Regarding claim 9, Mishra teaches the limitations of claim 9 substantially as follows:
A data processing method executed by a data processing apparatus including:
a register including, as an address region, a setting region that stores setting information transmitted from a host, (Mishra; [0057]: The configuration register may be located within a user defined register space: 0x01 to 0x1C in hexadecimal. For example, register location 0x18 may be used as the configuration register)
a communication information region that stores communication information with the host; and (Mishra; [0056]: the configuration register may be defined at location 0x18 and the page-address register may be defined at location 0x19 in the register space (i.e., communication information))
a communication unit that performs register communication between the host and the register, (Mishra; [0056]: FIG. 6 is a diagram of an RFFE register space 600 having a configuration register and a page-address register (i.e., communication with register))
the data processing method comprising: writing communication mode information indicating at least one communication mode of the register communication in the communication information region in a case where the communication mode information is received from the host; and (Mishra; [0051]: In an aspect, a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time. In an example, the configuration register may be set to indicate that the Register-0 Write command will be used in a legacy manner (legacy mode) (i.e., communication mode))
setting a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes based on the communication mode information written in the communication information region. (Mishra; [0051]: In an aspect, a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time. In an example, the configuration register may be set to indicate that the Register-0 Write command will be used in a legacy manner (legacy mode) (i.e., sets a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes ))
Mishra does not teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
a security data region that stores security data for the setting information, and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pekny discloses the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
a security data region that stores security data for the setting information, and (Pekny; [0030]: the protected mode access register 28 is essentially a hidden register in the NAND memory device (i.e. security data region))
Pekny is combinable with Mishra because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mishra to incorporate a register portion for secured information as in Pekny in order to improve the security of the system by provisioning a portion of the register for protected information.
Regarding claim 10, Mishra teaches the limitations of claim 10 substantially as follows:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for controlling a data processing apparatus that includes a register including, as an address region, a setting region that stores setting information transmitted from a host, (Mishra; [0057]: The configuration register may be located within a user defined register space: 0x01 to 0x1C in hexadecimal. For example, register location 0x18 may be used as the configuration register)
a communication information region that stores communication information with the host, and (Mishra; [0056]: the configuration register may be defined at location 0x18 and the page-address register may be defined at location 0x19 in the register space (i.e., communication information))
that includes a communication unit that performs register communication between the host and the register, (Mishra; [0056]: FIG. 6 is a diagram of an RFFE register space 600 having a configuration register and a page-address register (i.e., communication with register))
the program being executable by a processor to perform operations comprising: writing communication mode information indicating at least one communication mode of the register communication in the communication information region in a case where the communication mode information is received from the host; and (Mishra; [0051]: In an aspect, a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time. In an example, the configuration register may be set to indicate that the Register-0 Write command will be used in a legacy manner (legacy mode) (i.e., communication mode))
setting a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes based on the communication mode information written in the communication information region. (Mishra; [0051]: In an aspect, a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time. In an example, the configuration register may be set to indicate that the Register-0 Write command will be used in a legacy manner (legacy mode) (i.e., sets a register definition for a same space of the register for each of the communication modes ))
Mishra does not teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
a security data region that stores security data for the setting information, and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pekny discloses the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
a security data region that stores security data for the setting information, and (Pekny; [0030]: the protected mode access register 28 is essentially a hidden register in the NAND memory device (i.e. security data region))
Pekny is combinable with Mishra because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mishra to incorporate a register portion for secured information as in Pekny in order to improve the security of the system by provisioning a portion of the register for protected information.
Regarding claim 11, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 10.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 10, wherein the communication mode is any one of a mode in which encrypted data including the setting information is exchanged, a mode in which an error detection code related to the setting information is exchanged, a mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged, and a mode in which authentication data is exchanged. (Mishra; [0053]: the additional command codes may indicate more than 16 bytes of register reads and writes using only one datagram (Register-0 Write command) Moreover, the additional command codes may indicate electrical signaling beyond what is currently defined in the RFFE/SPMI protocol. The signaling may include interrupt signaling, error signaling, flow control signaling, etc (i.e., a mode in which an error detection code related to the setting information is exchanged))
Regarding claim 13, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where the mode in which an error detection code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the error detection code in the security data, and storing the setting information targeted for the error detection code in the setting region. (Mishra; [0053]: the additional command codes may indicate more than 16 bytes of register reads and writes using only one datagram (Register-0 Write command) Moreover, the additional command codes may indicate electrical signaling beyond what is currently defined in the RFFE/SPMI protocol. The signaling may include interrupt signaling, error signaling, flow control signaling, etc (i.e., error detection code))
Regarding claim 16, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 10.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 10, wherein the set register definition is not changed until a command indicating end of the communication mode is received from the host. (Mishra; [0051]: a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time (i.e., set register definition is not changed))
Regarding claim 17, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 10.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: setting whether or not the communication mode is supported, wherein the register definition is not changed in a case where a command in a communication mode other than the communication mode the setting. (Mishra; [0051]: a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time (i.e., set register definition is not changed))
Regarding claim 20, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 9.
Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
The data processing method according to claim 9, wherein the set register definition is not changed until a command indicating end of the communication mode is received from the host. (Mishra; [0051]: a Register-0 Write command may be modified by way of an additional configuration register. The configuration register may be set ahead of time (i.e., set register definition is not changed))
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20190163649 A1), in view of Pekny (US 20090276561 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Fan (US 9372956 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 2.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where a mode for exchanging encrypted data including the setting information is written in the communication information region, the encrypted data is stored in the security data region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where a mode for exchanging encrypted data including the setting information is written in the communication information region, the encrypted data is stored in the security data region. (Fan; Col. 8, line 34-39: The register 305 may store a unique identifier for the programmable device 302 (e.g., programmed when the device was manufactured), as well as bitstream encryption information, a user-defined code, and information about the read/write status of the register (i.e., store encrypted information))
Fan is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate storage of encrypted data as in Fan in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which encrypted or secured data may be stored in a designated register.
Regarding claim 12, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 11.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where a mode for exchanging encrypted data including the setting information is written in the communication information region, storing the encrypted data in the security data region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where a mode for exchanging encrypted data including the setting information is written in the communication information region, storing the encrypted data in the security data region. (Fan; Col. 8, line 34-39: The register 305 may store a unique identifier for the programmable device 302 (e.g., programmed when the device was manufactured), as well as bitstream encryption information, a user-defined code, and information about the read/write status of the register (i.e., store encrypted information))
Fan is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate storage of encrypted data as in Fan in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which encrypted or secured data may be stored in a designated register.
Claims 5-6, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra (US 20190163649 A1), in view of Pekny (US 20090276561 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Chhabra (US 20240193263 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 2.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, the message authentication code is stored in the security data region, and the setting information targeted for the message authentication code is stored in the setting region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chhabra discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, the message authentication code is stored in the security data region, and the setting information targeted for the message authentication code is stored in the setting region. (Chhabra; [0073]: in the integrity based metadata organization region of memory a dataline is to be stored with a set of metadata that includes a message authentication code and a first proper subset of an error correction code and a second, different proper subset of an error correction code associated with the dataline is to be stored in memory that is sequestered from the dataline and the set of metadata)
Chhabra is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate message authentication data as in Chhabra in order to improve the security of the system by including a means by which transmitted information may be authenticated.
Regarding claim 6, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 2.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the mode in which authentication data is exchanged is written in the communication information region, the authentication data is stored in the security data region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chhabra discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The data processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the mode in which authentication data is exchanged is written in the communication information region, the authentication data is stored in the security data region. (Chhabra; [0073]: in the integrity based metadata organization region of memory a dataline is to be stored with a set of metadata that includes a message authentication code and a first proper subset of an error correction code and a second, different proper subset of an error correction code associated with the dataline is to be stored in memory that is sequestered from the dataline and the set of metadata)
Chhabra is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate message authentication data as in Chhabra in order to improve the security of the system by including a means by which transmitted information may be authenticated.
Regarding claim 14, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 11.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where the mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the message authentication code in the security data region, and storing the setting information targeted for the message authentication code in the setting region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chhabra discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where the mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the message authentication code in the security data region, and storing the setting information targeted for the message authentication code in the setting region. (Chhabra; [0073]: in the integrity based metadata organization region of memory a dataline is to be stored with a set of metadata that includes a message authentication code and a first proper subset of an error correction code and a second, different proper subset of an error correction code associated with the dataline is to be stored in memory that is sequestered from the dataline and the set of metadata)
Chhabra is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate message authentication data as in Chhabra in order to improve the security of the system by including a means by which transmitted information may be authenticated.
Regarding claim 15, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 11.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where the mode in which authentication data is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the authentication data in the security data region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chhabra discloses the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise: in a case where the mode in which authentication data is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the authentication data in the security data region. (Chhabra; [0073]: in the integrity based metadata organization region of memory a dataline is to be stored with a set of metadata that includes a message authentication code and a first proper subset of an error correction code and a second, different proper subset of an error correction code associated with the dataline is to be stored in memory that is sequestered from the dataline and the set of metadata)
Chhabra is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate message authentication data as in Chhabra in order to improve the security of the system by including a means by which transmitted information may be authenticated.
Regarding claim 18, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 9.
Mishra and Pekny do not teach the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
The data processing method according to claim 9, further comprising: in a case where the mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the message authentication code in the security data region, and storing the setting information targeted for the message authentication code in the setting region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chhabra discloses the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
The data processing method according to claim 9, further comprising: in a case where the mode in which a message authentication code related to the setting information is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the message authentication code in the security data region, and storing the setting information targeted for the message authentication code in the setting region. (Chhabra; [0073]: in the integrity based metadata organization region of memory a dataline is to be stored with a set of metadata that includes a message authentication code and a first proper subset of an error correction code and a second, different proper subset of an error correction code associated with the dataline is to be stored in memory that is sequestered from the dataline and the set of metadata)
Chhabra is combinable with Mishra and Pekny because all are from the same field of endeavor of controlling information on registers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Mishra and Pekny to incorporate message authentication data as in Chhabra in order to improve the security of the system by including a means by which transmitted information may be authenticated.
Regarding claim 19, Mishra and Pekny teach the limitations of claim 18.
Mishra, Pekny and Chhabra teach the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The data processing method according to claim 18, further comprising: in a case where the mode in which authentication data is exchanged is written in the communication information region, storing the authentication data in the security data region. (Chhabra; [0073]: in the integrity based metadata organization region of memory a dataline is to be stored with a set of metadata that includes a message authentication code and a first proper subset of an error correction code and a second, different proper subset of an error correction code associated with the dataline is to be stored in memory that is sequestered from the dataline and the set of metadata)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 18 is applicable to the instant claim.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Merino (US 20200401549 A1) which teaches a multi-I/O SPI which includes registers divided into a primary region that is accessed only in default mode at power-up for write and/or read operations, and a secondary region that is accessed by any mode enabled in the control register.
Zhong (US 20230080111 A1) which teaches camera authentication method and a control apparatus applicable to an identity authentication of an on-board camera in the autonomous driving field.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights