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 .
The amendment filed 7/29/2026 has been placed of record in the file.
Claims 24, 25, 35, and 36 have been amended.
The objection to claims 24, 25, 35, and 36 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 16-37 are pending.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-21, 26-32, and 37 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as discussed below.
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 16-21, 26-32, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0273210) in view of Kloth (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0312057).
Jung disclosed techniques for performing secure booting. In an analogous art, Kloth disclosed techniques for securely updating executable code. Both systems are directed toward secure booting.
Regarding claim 16, Jung discloses a method for secure booting a device having a non-volatile memory (NVM), the method comprising: performing a mission mode including: protecting a protected area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); protecting a scratch area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); performing a download boot mode including: protecting the protected area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); performing a protected area integrity check (paragraph 59, verifies integrity of boot code stored in TCM); loading boot patches (paragraph 37, boot code patching); and downloading one or more of a firmware or a scratch page for the device including an authentication check of the download (paragraph 22, ROM stores boot code, and paragraph 33, authentication of boot code); performing a commit boot mode including: protecting the scratch area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); performing a scratch area authenticity check (paragraph 58, verifies integrity of boot code stored in ROM); copying information from the scratch area into the protected area (paragraph 59, boot code stored in ROM copied and stored in TCM); and protecting the protected area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location).
Jung does not explicitly state applying download and commit firewall settings. However, providing such settings as part of a secure boot was well known in the art as evidenced by Kloth. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jung by adding the ability for applying download firewall settings and applying commit firewall settings as provided by Kloth (see paragraph 511, secure boot logic acts as firewall to filter/monitor traffic). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that implementing secure booting in this way would assist in providing improvements in intrusion prevention (see Kloth, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes: receiving a command indicating initiating an application (Jung, paragraph 28, implements applications); and starting the application (Jung, paragraph 28, implements applications).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes: receiving a command indicating initiating an download mode (Jung, paragraph 37, boot code patching); setting a boot mode to the download mode (Jung, paragraph 37, boot code patching); and resetting the device (Jung, paragraph 30, resetting the computing device).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes receiving a command indicating initiating a commit mode (Jung, paragraph 59, boot code copied), setting a boot mode to the commit mode (Jung, paragraph 59, boot code copied), and resetting the device (Jung, paragraph 30, resetting the computing device).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes: performing boot measurements (Jung, paragraph 74, hash value of boot code); and determining a boot measurements response (Jung, paragraph 74, generates check log).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes: performing a protected area integrity check (Jung, paragraph 59, verifies integrity of boot code stored in TCM); and loading boot patches (Jung, paragraph 37, boot code patching).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the download boot mode includes: setting a boot mode to the commit boot mode (Jung, paragraph 59, boot code copied); and resetting the device at an end of the download boot mode (Jung, paragraph 30, resetting the computing device).
Regarding claim 27, Jung discloses a device that is configured to be securely booted, wherein the device includes a non-volatile memory (NVM), comprising a processor configured to: perform a mission mode including: protect a protected area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); protect a scratch area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); perform a download boot mode including: protect a protected area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); perform a protected area integrity check (paragraph 59, verifies integrity of boot code stored in TCM); load boot patches (paragraph 37, boot code patching); and download one or more of a firmware or a scratch page for the device including an authentication check of the download (paragraph 22, ROM stores boot code, and paragraph 33, authentication of boot code); perform a commit boot mode including: protect the scratch area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location); perform a scratch area authenticity check (paragraph 58, verifies integrity of boot code stored in ROM); copy information from the scratch area into the protected area (paragraph 59, boot code stored in ROM copied and stored in TCM); and protect the protected area of the NVM (paragraph 38, secure boot protects boot code at each memory location).
Jung does not explicitly state applying download and commit firewall settings. However, providing such settings as part of a secure boot was well known in the art as evidenced by Kloth. Since the inventions encompass the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jung by adding the ability for applying download firewall settings and applying commit firewall settings as provided by Kloth (see paragraph 511, secure boot logic acts as firewall to filter/monitor traffic). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that implementing secure booting in this way would assist in providing improvements in intrusion prevention (see Kloth, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes the processor configured to: receive a command indicating initiating an application (Jung, paragraph 28, implements applications); and start the application (Jung, paragraph 28, implements applications).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes the processor configured to: receive a command indicating initiating a download mode (Jung, paragraph 37, boot code patching); set a boot mode to the download mode (Jung, paragraph 37, boot code patching); and reset the device (Jung, paragraph 30, resetting the computing device).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes the processor configured to: receive a command indicating initiating a commit mode (Jung, paragraph 59, boot code copied); set a boot mode to the commit mode (Jung, paragraph 59, boot code copied); and reset the device (Jung, paragraph 30, resetting the computing device).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes: performing boot measurements (Jung, paragraph 74, hash value of boot code); and determining a boot measurements response (Jung, paragraph 74, generates check log).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the mission mode includes: performing a protected area integrity check (Jung, paragraph 59, verifies integrity of boot code stored in TCM); and loading boot patches (Jung, paragraph 37, boot code patching).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Jung and Kloth discloses wherein performing the download boot mode includes setting a boot mode to the commit boot mode (Jung, paragraph 59, boot code copied) and resetting the device at an end of the download boot mode (Jung, paragraph 30, resetting the computing device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 33 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. Claims 23-25 and 34-36 are objected to due to their dependence on claims 22 and 33 respectively.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks, the applicant has argued:
<Argument 1>
The combination of Jung and Kloth does not disclose the features of independent claim 16 because it does not disclose “copying information from the scratch area into the protected area” as recited in claim 16.
In response to argument 1, the combination of Jung and Kloth does disclose the features as recited in claim 16. The rejection cites Jung, paragraph 59, which shows that boot code stored in the ROM is copied and stored in the TCM. This is seen to meet the limitation at hand as Jung clearly states copying of integrity verified information from one area to another area. The applicant argues that “The Office interprets the TCM to be equivalent to the ‘scratch area’ recited in the claims.” However, this is incorrect. The rejection clearly aligns Jung’s TCM to the claimed protected area. The claims do not appear to further define the scratch area and the protected area so as delineate over the teachings of the cited art. Here the applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 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 Victor Lesniewski whose telephone number is (571)272-2812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Victor Lesniewski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights