/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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received June 11, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-10 are pending and addressed below.
information disclosure statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/20/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Ishikawa (US2019/0325138 A1, publish date 10/24/2019) (on Applicant’s IDS filed 05/23/2025).
Claim 1:
With respect to claim 1, Ishikawa discloses an information processing apparatus (verification unit, Figure 3), comprising:
a determination processor that executes a determination operation of determining integrity of a program ([0001] "present disclosure generally relates to an information processing apparatus able to detect tampering of software" and [0023] : "present disclosure provides a technique of verifying a validity of device control software" and [0021] : "verification method is to generate a hash value, as a correct value, of the software, and re-calculate the hash value of the software of interest during the verification. If the re-calculated hash value is not equal to the correct value, it is determined that the software has been tampered with" and [0054] : "Each program in the programs is subjected sequentially to the software verification"); and
an output processor that outputs an alarm regarding the program that has failed the determination operation ([FIG. 5 - elem. 406] and [FIG. 9] and [0061] : "MFP 100 displays, in a message display area 406 of the operation unit 102, a message to inform a user that a system continuation error occurs and execution of an unknown program is blocked" and [0044] : "the screen displays a message indicating that firmware tampering is detected"),
wherein the determination processor includes
a first determination processor that determines, in response to activation of a monitoring program triggered by power on of the information processing apparatus (When electric power is supplied and the startup process is started, 0046), integrity of a first program that has already been executed or is being executed at the activation of the monitoring program ([FIG. 8 - elem. 702, 703] and [0043] : "In a case where a verify-at-startup checkbox is selected, a software verification function performed at system startup is enabled In a case where a verify-at-execution checkbox is selected, software verification function performed at function execution is enabled" and [FIG. 10B - elem. S1011, S1020] and [0045] : "FIGS. 10A and 10B is executed only when the verification-at-startup checkbox 702 is selected FIG. 10B is called a software verification" and [0055] : "verification process illustrated in FIG. 11 is executed only when the verification at execution checkbox 703 is selected" and [0056] : (to achieve a robust reliability, it is necessary to perform both the verification at the startup and the verification at the execution … Any process performed by the MFP 100 illustrated in FIG. 11 is performed such that after a corresponding program stored in the FlashROM211 is loaded by the CPU 201 into the DRAM 202, the process is performed via an operation process executed by the CPU 201” (0056), “Before starting the program file, a process of verification at function execution is started in S1101. For example, when a user presses the button 402 to start the copy function, a program file necessary in executing the copy function is verified and then started” (0057) (In order to distinguish the software verification process illustrated in FIG. 11 from the software verification process illustrated in FIG. 10B, the software verification process illustrated in FIG. 11 may also be referred to as a program verification process" and [0048] : "process of verifying software stored in the FlashROM 211 is started in S1011"), and
a second determination processor that determines, in response to execution of a second program that starts to be executed after the activation of the monitoring program, integrity of the second program [0052] : "hash values re-calculated for all respective program files loaded from the FlashROM211 are compared, on a file-by-file basis, with the hash values acquired from the list of correct answers in startup verification 321" and [0053] : "In S1020, the MFP 100 starts the verification-at-execution unit 322" and [0058] : "MFP 100 verifies, using the verification-at- execution unit 322, a program to be started, and determines whether the verification is successful verification-at- execution unit 322 refers to the white list for verification at execution 323 and determines a hash value corresponding to the program to be started. This hash value is compared with a hash value recalculated from the program file stored in the FlashROM 211, thereby verifying the program file to be started").
Claims 2, 10:
With respect to claims 2, 10, Ishikawa discloses wherein the first program is a startup program that is executed for activation of the information processing apparatus ([FIG. 8 - elem. 702, 703] and [0043] : "In a case where a verify-at-startup checkbox is selected, a software verification function performed at system startup is enabled In a case where a verify-at-execution checkbox is selected, software verification function performed at function execution is enabled").
Claims 3, 10:
With respect to claims 3, 10, Ishikawa discloses wherein the first determination processor determines the integrity of the first program while meeting a restriction regarding an activation time of the information processing apparatus ([0058] this hash value is compared with a hash value recalculated from the program file stored in the FlashROM 211, thereby verifying the program file to be started. In a case where a hash value corresponding to the program to be started is not obtained from the white list for verification at execution 323, it is determined that the program is an unknown program and the verification has failed) ([0059] determining of a hash value of a program to be started is unsuccessful which indicates that the program of interest is not a program that is added to the system).
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, Ishikawa discloses wherein the first determination processor determines the integrity of the first program on a basis of a first list, the first list including a plurality of entries to respectively store different pairs of file path and hash value ([FIG. 4] and [0038] : "list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 combination of a file name 3001 and a hash value 3002 is taken for each of all program files program files include an OS program, and/or an application program that provides a function data includes at least a file name, a location where the file is installed (in a directory), and a hash value" and [0039] :"list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 may be the same file", [0067]:The white list for verification at execution 323 is data including a file name of a program file, a file path, and a hash value).
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, Ishikawa discloses wherein the second determination processor determines the integrity of the second program on a basis of a second list different from the first list, the second list including a plurality of entries to respectively store different pairs of file path and hash value ([FIG. 4] and [0038] : "list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 combination of a file name 3001 and a hash value 3002 is taken for each of all program files program files include an OS program, and/or an application program that provides a function data includes at least a file name, a location where the file is installed (in a directory), and a hash value" and [0039] :"list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 may be the same file", [0067]:The white list for verification at execution 323 is data including a file name of a program file, a file path, and a hash value).
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, Ishikawa discloses wherein the first determination processor and the second determination processor determine the integrity of the first program and the second program on a basis of a third list, the third list including a plurality of entries to respectively store pairs of file path and hash value([FIG. 4] and [0038] : "list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 combination of a file name 3001 and a hash value 3002 is taken for each of all program files program files include an OS program, and/or an application program that provides a function data includes at least a file name, a location where the file is installed (in a directory), and a hash value" and [0039] :"list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 may be the same file", [0067]:The white list for verification at execution 323 is data including a file name of a program file, a file path, and a hash value).
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, Ishikawa discloses wherein the first determination processor determines the integrity of the first program on a basis of a first entry of the plurality of entries, the first entry storing an identical file path ([FIG. 4] and [0038] : "list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 combination of a file name 3001 and a hash value 3002 is taken for each of all program files program files include an OS program, and/or an application program that provides a function data includes at least a file name, a location where the file is installed (in a directory), and a hash value" and [0039] :"list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 may be the same file", [0067]:The white list for verification at execution 323 is data including a file name of a program file, a file path, and a hash value).
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, Ishikawa discloses wherein the second determination processor determines the integrity of the second program on a basis of a second entry of the plurality of entries, the second entry storing different file paths ([FIG. 4] and [0038] : "list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 combination of a file name 3001 and a hash value 3002 is taken for each of all program files program files include an OS program, and/or an application program that provides a function data includes at least a file name, a location where the file is installed (in a directory), and a hash value" and [0039] :"list of correct answers in startup verification 321 and the white list for verification at execution 323 may be the same file", [0067]:The white list for verification at execution 323 is data including a file name of a program file, a file path, and a hash value).
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, Ishikawa discloses a monitoring method for an information processing apparatus (verification unit, Figure 3), comprising:
executing a determination operation of determining integrity of a program ([0001] "present disclosure generally relates to an information processing apparatus able to detect tampering of software" and [0023] : "present disclosure provides a technique of verifying a validity of device control software" and [0021] : "verification method is to generate a hash value, as a correct value, of the software, and re-calculate the hash value of the software of interest during the verification. If the re-calculated hash value is not equal to the correct value, it is determined that the software has been tampered with" and [0054] : "Each program in the programs is subjected sequentially to the software verification"); and
outputting an alarm regarding a program that has failed the determination operation
([FIG. 5 - elem. 406] and [FIG. 9] and [0061] : "MFP 100 displays, in a message display area 406 of the operation unit 102, a message to inform a user that a system continuation error occurs and execution of an unknown program is blocked" and [0044] : "the screen displays a message indicating that firmware tampering is detected"),
wherein the determination operation includes
executing, in response to activation of a monitoring program triggered by power on of the information processing apparatus (When electric power is supplied and the startup process is started, 0046), first determination to determine integrity of a first program that has already been executed or is being executed at the activation of the monitoring program ([FIG. 8 - elem. 702, 703] and [0043] : "In a case where a verify-at-startup checkbox is selected, a software verification function performed at system startup is enabled In a case where a verify-at-execution checkbox is selected, software verification function performed at function execution is enabled" and [FIG. 10B - elem. S1011, S1020] and [0045] : "FIGS. 10A and 10B is executed only when the verification-at-startup checkbox 702 is selected FIG. 10B is called a software verification" and [0055] : "verification process illustrated in FIG. 11 is executed only when the verification at execution checkbox 703 is selected" and [0056] : (to achieve a robust reliability, it is necessary to perform both the verification at the startup and the verification at the execution … Any process performed by the MFP 100 illustrated in FIG. 11 is performed such that after a corresponding program stored in the FlashROM211 is loaded by the CPU 201 into the DRAM 202, the process is performed via an operation process executed by the CPU 201” (0056), “Before starting the program file, a process of verification at function execution is started in S1101. For example, when a user presses the button 402 to start the copy function, a program file necessary in executing the copy function is verified and then started” (0057) (In order to distinguish the software verification process illustrated in FIG. 11 from the software verification process illustrated in FIG. 10B, the software verification process illustrated in FIG. 11 may also be referred to as a program verification process" and [0048] : "process of verifying software stored in the FlashROM 211 is started in S1011"), and
executing, in response to execution of a second program that starts to be executed after the activation of the monitoring program, second determination to determine integrity of the second program [0052] : "hash values re-calculated for all respective program files loaded from the FlashROM211 are compared, on a file-by-file basis, with the hash values acquired from the list of correct answers in startup verification 321" and [0053] : "In S1020, the MFP 100 starts the verification-at-execution unit 322" and [0058] : "MFP 100 verifies, using the verification-at- execution unit 322, a program to be started, and determines whether the verification is successful verification-at- execution unit 322 refers to the white list for verification at execution 323 and determines a hash value corresponding to the program to be started. This hash value is compared with a hash value recalculated from the program file stored in the FlashROM 211, thereby verifying the program file to be started").
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, Applicant argues that:
1)In Ishikawa, the LOADER, KERNEL, initrd, and controller software are all activated at S1013, S1015, S1017, and S1019, respectively, during the process steps of FIG. 10B. That is, none of the LOADER, KERNEL, initrd, and controller software of Ishikawa has already been executed or is being executed at the activation of the program to perform the process steps of FIG. 10B, as required by claims 1 and 9. Ishikawa only teaches that the process steps of FIG. 10B are performed when the MFP 100 is started, and fails to teach or suggest any process step to determine integrity of any program that has already been executed or is being executed at the activation of the monitoring program recited in claims 1 and 9.
In response to remark/arguments (1), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ishikawa discloses “When electric power is supplied and the startup process is started” (0046). “to achieve a robust reliability, it is necessary to perform both the verification at the startup and the verification at the execution … Any process performed by the MFP 100 illustrated in FIG. 11 is performed such that after a corresponding program stored in the FlashROM211 is loaded by the CPU 201 into the DRAM 202, the process is performed via an operation process executed by the CPU 201” (0056), “Before starting the program file, a process of verification at function execution is started in S1101. For example, when a user presses the button 402 to start the copy function, a program file necessary in executing the copy function is verified and then started” (0057). Therefore, Examiner maintains that Ishikawa does teach and suggest this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helai Salehi whose telephone number is 571-270-7468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Pwu, can be reached on 571-272-6798. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HELAI SALEHI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights