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 .
Double Patenting – Non-statutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of Patent No. US 11669389 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 12, 17 of US 11669389 B1 (reference patent) has each element of claim(s) 1, 21 of the examined application. The claim language in the reference patent is narrower than the claim language in the examined application. Therefore the application claim(s) is/are anticipated by the patent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillespie et al. (US20160098360A1) in view of Mannan et al. (US20170230179A1), and further in view of Wade (US 9578763 B1).
Gillespie discloses:
1. A self-correcting secure computer system comprising:
a random access memory (RAM) device; and (par 11)
at least one processor in communication with the ROM device and the RAM device, the at least one processor programmed to:
receive an activation signal; (par 26)
retrieve, from the ROM device, data to execute an operating system; [examiner’s note: BIOS is stored in ROM in every computer, and it loads an OS.]
execute, on the RAM device, the operating system based on the data from the ROM device; (par 26: At step 58, the process starts with a boot of an operating system from non-volatile storage to volatile storage, such as RAM.) [examiner’s note: BIOS is stored in ROM in every computer, and it loads an OS.]
receive a delete system signal; (par 23: If desired for additional security, a complete deletion of operating system information may be performed, such as by cleansing RAM 16, flash memory 18 or other memory devices involved in supporting the operating system.)
delete memory of one or more persistent memory devices attached to the computer system; and (par 23: If desired for additional security, a complete deletion of operating system information may be performed, such as by cleansing RAM 16, flash memory 18 or other memory devices involved in supporting the operating system.)
However, Gillespie does not explicitly disclose, while Mannan teaches:
a read-only memory (ROM) device; (par 466)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine encryption key of Gillespie with encryption key of Mannan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to stop the attacks.
However, Gillespie does not explicitly disclose, while Wade teaches:
render the computer system inoperable. (col 1, ln 60-67 and col 2, ln 1-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine security module of Gillespie with security module of Wade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to make it more difficult for an attacker to tamper with the electronic device. (Wade: col 5, ln 24-45)
Modified Gillespie discloses:
2. The computer system in accordance with Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to
However, Gillespie does not explicitly disclose, while Wade teaches:
cause one or more components of the computer system to become inoperable by electrically adjusting one or more settings to cause a short circuit in the computer system. (col 1, ln 60-67 and col 2, ln 1-10)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected as being the system implemented by the system of claim(s) 1-2, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-20 is/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, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights