CTFR 18/978,334 CTFR 86013 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received on April 30, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant also has not filed a proper terminal disclaimer. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained and repeated herein below. Applicant’s amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant has amended the claims in such a way that the scope of the claims has been changed. New art is being used to address the newly added claim limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. Examiner’s Note Applicant’s amendments have necessitated a new grounds 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 1-15 (see below). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation “the device”. There are multiple previously recited devices and it is unclear as to which particular device the limitation is referring. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected for containing the same indefinite language as the parent claims without further remedying the indefinite language. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,228,420 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1-15 are disclosed by claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,228,420 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,560,256 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1-15 are disclosed by claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,560,256 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,103,872 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1-15 are disclosed by claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,103,872 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,426,159 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1-15 are disclosed by claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,426,159 . 08-35 Claim s 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 21, 23-26, 28-31 and 33-35 of copending Application No. 18/502,763 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1-15 are disclosed by claims 21, 23-26, 28-31 and 33-35 of copending Application No. 18/502,763 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/000,185 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1-15 are disclosed by claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/000,185 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakarunanayake et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0123209 cited in the IDS filed on 12/12/2024 and hereinafter referred to as Rajakarunanayake) in view of Hulvey (U.S. Patent No. 2006/0116107) . As to claim 1 , Rajakarunanayake discloses an apparatus comprising: processing circuitry coupled to a memory (paragraph [0015] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches secure element processing circuitry (SE) connected to a memory) , the processing circuitry to: facilitate communication between a first device and a second device (paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches the SE allows for communication between host processing circuitry and various I/O devices) , wherein the communication between the first and second devices is cryptographically secured (paragraph [0022] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches using digital signatures to secure communications) and facilitated based on session information to control one or more operations relating to the communication (paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0036] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches a policy and cryptographic protocols to control operations relating to the communications.) . While Rajakarunanayake does generally disclose transmitting a key, Rajakarunanayake does not specifically disclose wherein the session information includes cryptographic keys exchanged between the device and second device as claimed. However, Hulvey does disclose wherein the session information includes cryptographic keys exchanged between the device and second device (paragraphs [0012], [0019], and [0032], Hulvey teaches an audio device and host device exchange cryptographic keys.) . 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 invention of Rajakarunanayake with the teachings of Hulvey for having the session information include cryptographic keys exchanged between the device and second device because this would increase security. Claims 6 and 11 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above As to claim 3 , the combination of teachings between Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the session information is further to define one or more of integrity parameters, cryptography parameters, or replay parameters relating to the communication (paragraphs [0022], [0025], [0036] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches cryptographic protocols including cryptography parameters.) . Claims 8 and 13 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 3 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 3 above. As to claim 5 , the combination of teachings between Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the session information is based on a session policy (paragraphs [0024], [0025], [0036], [0049] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches a policy for session communication.) . Claims 10 and 15 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 5 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey as applied to claim s 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Grobman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0038997 and hereinafter referred to as Grobman) . As to claim 2 , the combination of teachings between Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communication is further secured based on a mutually trusted circuitry to verify trustworthiness of at least one of the first device or the second device (paragraphs [0022], [0023] and Fig. 1, Rajakarunanayake teaches using digital signatures for verification of devices.) . The combination of teachings between Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second devices execute in a trusted execution environment, wherein the mutually trusted circuitry is further to support audio circuitry to manage audio of the communication as claimed. However, Grobman does disclose wherein the first and second devices execute in a trusted execution environment (paragraph [0015], Grobman teaches operating software in a secure VM) , wherein the mutually trusted circuitry is further to support audio circuitry to manage audio of the communication (paragraphs [0015], [0017] and [0021], Grobman teaches audio hardware.) . 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 modified invention of Rajakarunanayake with the teachings of Grobman for having the first and second devices execute in a trusted execution environment because this would increase security. Claims 7 and 12 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 2 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey as applied to claim s 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Shimko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0037929 and hereinafter referred to as Shimko) . As to claim 4 , the combination of teachings between Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey disclose the apparatus of claim 1. The combination of teachings between Rajakarunanayake and Hulvey does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second devices are allowed to access memory space, wherein other devices or modules are restricted from accessing the memory space, wherein the other devices include third-party devices, wherein the modules includes one or more of operating systems, system software, kernels, drivers, or middleware as claimed. However, Shimko does disclose wherein the first and second devices are allowed to access memory space, wherein other devices or modules are restricted from accessing the memory space, wherein the other devices include third-party devices, wherein the modules includes one or more of operating systems, system software, kernels, drivers, or middleware (paragraphs [0007], [0021], [0027], [0037], [0039], [0053], [0057] and Fig. 12, Shimko teaches a processor coupled to a memory and establishing a shared memory space for two processes where the memory space is access controlled to allow the two process to communicate while other processes are not allowed access to the shared memory space. Note: the claim only requires one of other devices OR modules.) . 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 invention of Wagner with the teachings of Shimko for having a restricted memory space because this would increase security. Claims 9 and 14 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 4 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 4 above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 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 THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30. 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, Taghi Arani can be reached at 571-272-3787. 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. /THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 2 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 3 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 4 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 5 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 6 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 7 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 8 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 9 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 10 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 11 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 18/978,334 Page 12 Art Unit: 2438
Prosecution Insights