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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE: The claims have been reviewed and considered under the new guidance pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG 2019) issued January 7, 2019.
This communication is in response to Applicant’s claims filed on 22 October 2024. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement respectfully submitted on 22 October 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a physical memory management unit for allocating a heap area”, “a virtual memory management unit for allocating a heap area”, and “an address return unit for returning a heap allocation” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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 13-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a physical memory management unit”, “a virtual memory management unit”, and “an address return unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 13 recites an apparatus claim comprising no clear linkage between the structure of the apparatus and the acts for performing the entire claimed function. A “unit for” is not equivalent to sufficient structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claim 17-20 are also rejected under the same rationale set forth above.
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 (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.
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 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deutsch et al. (Pub No. 2021/0240638).
Referring to the rejection of claim 1, Deutsch et al. discloses a method for detecting a security vulnerability of dynamic memory, comprising: (See Deutsch et al., para. 35)
allocating a heap area in physical memory in response to a heap allocation request from a user; (See Deutsch et al., para. 56)
allocating a heap area of virtual memory corresponding to the heap area in the physical memory; (See Deutsch et al., para. 83)
and returning a heap allocation address to the user, wherein the heap allocation address includes heap authentication information, heap allocation address identification information, and heap size information. (See Deutsch et al., para. 84 and 225)
Referring to the rejection of claims 2 and 14, Deutsch et al. discloses wherein the heap area includes a heap header area and a heap body area. (See Deutsch et al., para. 92-93)
Referring to the rejection of claims 3 and 15, Deutsch et al. discloses wherein the heap allocation address includes a start address of the heap body area allocated in the physical memory. (See Deutsch et al., para. 56, 100, 171-172, 180, and 199)
Referring to the rejection of claims 7 and 19, Deutsch et al. discloses wherein, when access to the heap area in the physical memory occurs, access permission information in the virtual memory corresponding to the physical memory is checked, and the access is blocked based on the access permission information. (See Deutsch et al., para. 88, 99, 142 and 203)
Referring to the rejection of claim 13, Deutsch et al. discloses an apparatus for detecting a security vulnerability of dynamic memory, comprising: (See Deutsch et al., para. 35)
a physical memory management unit for allocating a heap area in physical memory in response to a heap allocation request from a user; (See Deutsch et al., para. 56)
a virtual memory management unit for allocating a heap area of virtual memory corresponding to the heap area in the physical memory; (See Deutsch et al., para. 83)
and an address return unit for returning a heap allocation address to the user, wherein the heap allocation address includes heap authentication information, heap allocation address identification information, and heap size information. (See Deutsch et al., para. 84 and 225)
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 (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.
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 4-6, 8-12, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch et al. (Pub No. 2021/0240638) in view of Garthwaite (Pub No. 2004/0123065).
Deutsch et al. discloses the invention as claimed above, however, Deutsch et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the heap authentication information includes most significant 7 bits and least significant 7 bits of a hash value generated based on previous heap authentication information, the heap size information, and a heap-allocation virtual address.
Garthwaite discloses a method and system for memory management for binned remembered sets.
Referring to the rejection of claims 4 and 16, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses wherein the heap authentication information includes most significant 7 bits and least significant 7 bits of a hash value generated based on previous heap authentication information, the heap size information, and a heap-allocation virtual address. (See Garthwaite, para. 122, 125-127, and 131-139)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention was made to combine Deutsch et al.’s method and system for mitigating security vulnerabilities with memory allocation markers in cryptographic computing systems modified with Garthwaite’s method and system for memory management for binned remembered sets.
Motivation for such an implementation would enable dividing the remembered sets by restricting to parts of the heap where it does good. (See Garthwaite, para. 145)
Referring to the rejection of claims 5 and 17, Deutsch et al. discloses the invention as claimed above. In addition, Deutsch further discloses wherein a heap header area of the virtual memory indicates previous heap authentication information and access permission information, (See Deutsch et al., para. 61, 83, and 112) Deutsch et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Garthwaite discloses a heap body area of the virtual memory indicates the heap size information and access permission information, and the heap size information in the heap body area corresponds to a heap offset (heap_offset) value defined in 16-byte increments. (See Garthwaite, para. 32, 60, and 122-128)
The rationale for combining Deutsch et al. in view of Garthwaite is the same as claim 4.
Referring to the rejection of claims 6 and 18, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses wherein the heap size information corresponds to 1-bit information that indicates 1 when a size of the allocated heap area is greater than a preset size and that indicates 0 when the size of the allocated heap area is equal to or less than the preset size. (See Garthwaite, para. 45, 122, and 130)
The rationale for combining Deutsch et al. in view of Garthwaite is the same as claim 4.
Referring to the rejection of claims 8 and 20, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses wherein when access to the heap area in the physical memory occurs, an address of a header area of the virtual memory is calculated using heap size information in the virtual memory, and when the heap size information is 7 bits(b7~b1) at the calculated address and corresponds to ‘0000000’, (See Garthwaite, para. 123-126, 131, and Fig. 15) it is determined that the address is not the header area of the virtual memory, and the address of the header area of the virtual memory is calculated again based on a multiple of ‘0x80’. (See Deutsch et al., para. 171-172, 180-181)
The rationale for combining Deutsch et al. in view of Garthwaite is the same as claim 4.
Referring to the rejection of claim 9, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses further comprising: setting heap deallocation information in response to a heap deallocation request from the user, wherein setting the heap deallocation information comprises filling first 8 bytes of a heap body area of the physical memory corresponding to the heap deallocation request with a forward deallocated heap address, filling second 8 bytes of the heap body area of the physical memory corresponding to the heap deallocation request with a backward deallocated heap address, and initializing a remaining heap body area to 0. (See Deutsch et al., para. 156, 162). Gathwaite discloses , filling second 8 bytes of the heap body area of the physical memory corresponding to the heap deallocation request with a backward deallocated heap address, and initializing a remaining heap body area to 0. (See Garthwaite, para. 123-126, 131, and Fig. 15) The rationale for combining Deutsch et al. in view of Garthwaite is the same as claim 4.
Referring to the rejection of claim 10, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses wherein setting the heap deallocation information comprises updating a header area of the virtual memory corresponding to the heap deallocation request with previous heap authentication information and changing access permission information in a body area of the virtual memory corresponding to the heap deallocation request to 0. (See Deutsch et al., para. 92-93)
Referring to the rejection of claim 11, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses further comprising: after heap deallocation, reallocating a heap area in response to a heap reallocation request from the user, wherein reallocating the heap area includes reallocating the heap area in the physical memory, (See Deutsch et al., para. 70 and 91-93) updating heap area reallocation information in virtual memory corresponding to the reallocated physical memory, and returning a heap reallocation address to the user. (See Garthwaite, para. 35-36 and 66-70)
The rationale for combining Deutsch et al. in view of Garthwaite is the same as claim 4.
Referring to the rejection of claim 12, (Deutsch et al. modified by Garthwaite) discloses wherein updating the heap area reallocation information in the virtual memory comprises maintaining previous heap authentication information in a heap header area of the virtual memory and updating a heap body area of the virtual memory. (See Garthwaite, para. 66-70 and 122-128)
The rationale for combining Deutsch et al. in view of Garthwaite is the same as claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D FIELDS whose telephone number is (571)272-3871. The examiner can normally be reached IFP M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY 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.
/COURTNEY D FIELDS/Examiner, Art Unit 2436 January 2, 2026
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436