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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 10 is directing to “at least one storage disc or storage device” wherein the specification nor the claim defines the storage device. Thus under the BRI, the storage device can be any means for storing information including the signal carrier which can store/carry information. However, signal per se or signal carrier is not eligible for patentability.
Claims 11-18 are also rejected under the same rationale as rejected above and do not cure the deficiency as identified above in claim 10.
Under step 2A Prong I, claims 1, 11, and 19 are directing to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “compute…”; “compare…”; and “based on the comparison to the list, allow…” can be mentally done in human mind with aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Thus, it is reasonable to identify this limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under step 2A Prong II, other limitations in claims 1, 11, and 19 including “at least one memory”; “machine readable instructions”; “at least one processor…”; “by executing an instruction with programmable circuity”; and “access a list…”are considered as additional elements. However, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements of “at least one memory”; “machine readable instructions”; “at least one processor…”; “by executing an instruction with programmable circuity” merely recite high level of generalized and generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional element “access a list…” merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Under step 2B, these additional elements are identified as insignificantly amount to the judicial exception wherein these additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and high level of generalized and generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are similarly rejected as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein all the limitations in these claims, except the limitation of accessing and obtaining information, are considered as limitations that can be mentally done in human mind with aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion under step 2A Prong I. The additional elements including accessing and obtaining information are considered as additional elements under step 2A Prong II. However, these additional elements are identified as insignificantly amount to the judicial exception wherein these additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d) under step 2B. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldera (U.S. 2017/0132636 A1) in view of Richardson et al. (U.S. 2016/0321452 A1).
Re claim 1, Caldera discloses in Figures 1-23 an apparatus (e.g. abstract and Figure 1) comprising: at least one memory; machine readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit of a trusted execution environment to execute the machine readable instructions to at least:
compute an identifier representative of data prior to execution of an instance of the data (e.g. Figure 3 and paragraphs [0100-0101] wherein a hash function is performed on data to obtain the signature of the data);
access a list from a blockchain (e.g. Figure 1 component 116 and paragraphs [0037-0039, 0179, 0181, and 0208] wherein list of trusted/unstrusted data is obtained);
compare the identifier to blockchain identifiers in the list (e.g. Figure 1 and paragraphs [0025-0026 and 0080] with comparison to determine authentication); and
based on the comparison to the list, allow the data to be loaded and executed (e.g. paragraphs [0101-0103 and 0136-0137] wherein authorized is enable to executed the transaction).
Caldera fails to disclose the data is code block. However, Richardson et al. disclose the code block (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0713 and 0779-00782] which enable trusted code block to be executed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the code block as seen in Richardson et al.’s invention into Caldera’s invention because it would enable to run trusted code block (e.g. Richardson et al. - abstract).
Re claim 2, Caldera in view of Richardson et al. disclose the identifier is a first identifier, the list is a first list, the blockchain identifiers are first blockchain identifiers, and the code block is a first code block, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: compute a second identifier representative of a second code block prior to execution of an instance of the second code block; access a second list from the blockchain; compare the second identifier to second blockchain identifiers in the second list; and based on the second identifier corresponding to the second list, quarantine the code block (e.g. Caldera – Figures 9, 12, 17, 21-23 and paragraphs [0067-0069 and 0179-0185 ] and Richardson et al. - abstract and paragraphs [0713 and 0779-00782] wherein these processes are repeating for all code blocks or transactions in the blockchain with further review/analysis before decision).
Re claim 3, Caldera in view of Richardson et al. disclose the identifier is a first identifier, the list is a first list, the blockchain identifiers are first blockchain identifiers, and the code block is a first code block, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: compute a second identifier representative of a second code block prior to execution of an instance of the second code block; access a second list in the blockchain; compare the second identifier to second blockchain identifiers in the second list; determine whether the second code block is known; and based on the second identifier not corresponding to the second list and the second code block being known, consult a local policy to apply an action (e.g. Caldera – Figures 9, 12, 17, 21-23 and paragraphs [0010-0011, 0067-0069, 0179-0185 and 0208] and Richardson et al. - abstract and paragraphs [0713 and 0779-00782] wherein these processes are repeating for all code blocks or transactions in the blockchain with further review/analysis before decision).
Re claim 5, Caldera in view of Richardson et al. disclose the identifier is a first identifier, the list is a first list, and the code block is a first code block, one or more of the at least one processor circuit to generate the first list by: determining whether a second identifier of a second code block corresponds to a blockchain identifier; add a representation of the second code block to the first list based on the second identifier corresponding to the blockchain identifier; and add the first list to the blockchain, the blockchain to be accessed by a plurality of devices to perform a secure boot process (e.g. Caldera – Figures 9, 12, 17, 21-23 and paragraphs [0010-0011, 0067-0069, 0179-0185 and 0208 and Richardson et al. - abstract and paragraphs [0090-0091 and 0259, 0713 and 0779-00782] wherein the blockchain is formed).
Re claim 6, one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to obtain the second code block from at least one of a cloud repository, an IoT device, or a manufacturer (e.g. Caldera – paragraph [0159] and Richardson et al. – paragraphs [0099 and 0740]).
Re claim 7, Caldera in view of Richardson et al. disclose one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine whether the second identifier corresponds to the blockchain identifier based on a determination that a signature of the second identifier is valid (e.g. Caldera – Figures 9, 12, 17, 21-23 and paragraphs [0010-0011, 0067-0069, 0179-0185 and 0208] and Richardson et al. - abstract and paragraphs [0713 and 0779-00782]).
Re claim 8, Caldera in view of Richardson et al. disclose the list is a first list, the code block is a first code block, and the blockchain identifiers are first blockchain identifiers, the one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: access an attack signature from the blockchain; and add a reference identifier to a second list based on a second code block corresponding to the reference identifier including the attack signature; and add the second list to the blockchain, the blockchain to be accessed by a plurality of devices to perform a secure boot process (e.g. Caldera – Figures 9, 12, 17, 21-23 and paragraphs [0010-0011, 0067-0069, 0179-0185 and 0208] and Richardson et al. - abstract and paragraphs [0713 and 0779-00782] wherein these processes are repeating for all code blocks or transactions in the blockchain with further review/analysis before decision).
Re claim 9, Caldera in view of Richardson et al. disclose the one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: determine whether the reference identifier of the second code block corresponds to a blockchain identifier; and add the reference identifier to the second list based on the reference identifier not corresponding to the blockchain identifier (e.g. Caldera – Figures 9, 12, 17, 21-23 and paragraphs [0010-0011, 0067-0069, 0090,0179-0185 and 0208] and Richardson et al. - abstract and paragraphs [0090, 0713 and 0779-00782] wherein the list is modified to include the additional).
Re claim 10, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 11, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 12, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 14, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 15, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 16, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 17, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Re claim 18, it is storage disc or storage device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Re claim 19, it is method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 20, it is method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-12452075-B2
US-10628807-B2
US-9967333-B2
US-20200036519-A1
US-20180247045-A1
US-20200012763-A1
US-20180145836-A1
US-2016/0321452-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451