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 7/8/2026 has been placed of record in the file.
Claims 16, 20, 22, 24, and 29 have been amended.
The rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection of claims 24-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 31 has been added.
Claims 16-31 are now pending.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-31 have been considered but are moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
Claims have been amended to further define a storing step. The amendment proves a change in scope to the independent claims as the independent claims now explicitly state storing the inactive operating system to a storage provider. However, none of the amended claims show a patentable distinction over the prior art as evidenced by the following new grounds of rejection.
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 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziat et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0193224), hereinafter referred to as Ziat, in view of Mallichan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0136940), hereinafter referred to as Mallichan.
Ziat disclosed techniques for updating a secure element operating system. In an analogous art, Mallichan disclosed techniques for transitioning between operating systems. Both systems are directed toward operating system management.
Regarding claim 16, Ziat discloses a method for managing a plurality of operating systems for a secure element by an update agent within the secure element, the method comprising: identifying a first operating system, OS1, being actively used by the secure element (paragraph 43, main SE operating system); identifying inactive operating systems within the secure element, which are operating systems which have been loaded onto the secure element and are not actively used by the secure element (paragraph 43, previous versions); and allocating the inactive operating systems to a storage provider (paragraph 43, after updates previous versions are uninstalled and data exported).
Ziat does not explicitly state storing the inactive operating systems to a storage provider. However, managing operating systems in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Mallichan. 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 Ziat by adding the ability for storing the inactive operating system to a storage provider as provided by Mallichan (see paragraph 56, saves existing operating system on remote storage device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that transitioning operating systems would assist in mitigating threats to computing devices from untrusted domains or networks (see Mallichan, paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein identifying an operating systems as active or inactive comprises checking a status indicator of the operating system, wherein the status indicator is a data structure located on the secure element and storing for each operating system of the plurality of operating systems a corresponding status (Ziat, paragraph 73, registry entry stores associated IDs).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses receiving a request to load a second operating system, OS2, as a new active operating system on the secure element; performing a secure backup of the first operating system, OS1; and loading the second operating system, OS2, onto the secure element (Ziat, paragraph 43, new main SE operating system installed, and previous version uninstalled and data exported).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein allocating the inactive operating systems to a storage provider comprises performing a secure backup of the inactive operating systems (Ziat, paragraph 43, previous version uninstalled and data exported).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein performing a secure backup of an active or inactive operating system comprises creating an image of the operating system, and providing the operating system image to the storage provider to be stored thereon (Ziat, paragraph 43, data exported, and Mallichan, paragraph 56, generates backup image of existing operating system).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein the operating system image is created by encapsulating the operating system and encrypting it with cryptographic keys supported by the update agent (Mallichan, paragraph 30, encryption key protocols).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein loading the second operating system comprises: checking whether there is a backup version of the second operating system allocated within the storage provider; if there is a backup version allocated within the storage provider, retrieving the backup version; and replacing the first operating system with the backup version of the second operating system (Mallichan, paragraph 45, restoration of operating system from backup image).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses, if there is no backup version of the second operating system allocated within the storage provider, downloading the second operating system and replacing the first operating system with the second operating system (Ziat, paragraph 43, new main SE operating system installed).
Regarding claim 24, Ziat discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instructions that are configured to implement an update agent for managing a plurality of operating systems for a secure element, wherein the update agent is configured to: identify a first operating system, OS1, being actively used by the secure element (Ziat, paragraph 43, main SE operating system); identify inactive operating systems within the secure element, which are not actively used by the secure element (Ziat, paragraph 43, previous versions); and allocate the inactive operating systems to a storage provider (Ziat, paragraph 43, after updates previous versions are uninstalled and data exported).
Ziat does not explicitly state the update agent configured to store the inactive operating systems to a storage provider. However, managing operating systems in such a fashion was well known in the art as evidenced by Mallichan. 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 Ziat by adding the ability for the update agent configured to store the inactive operating system to a storage provider as provided by Mallichan (see paragraph 56, saves existing operating system on remote storage device). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that transitioning operating systems would assist in mitigating threats to computing devices from untrusted domains or networks (see Mallichan, paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses the update agent being configured to allocate the inactive operating systems by performing a secure backup of the inactive operating systems onto the storage provider (Ziat, paragraph 43, previous version uninstalled and data exported).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses the update agent being configured to: receive a request to load a second operating system, OS2, as a new active operating system on the secure element; perform a secure backup of the first operating system, OS1; and load the second operating system, OS2, onto the secure element (Ziat, paragraph 43, new main SE operating system installed, and previous version uninstalled and data exported).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses the update agent being configured to create an image of an operating system, and provide the operating system image to the storage provider to be stored thereon (Ziat, paragraph 43, data exported, and Mallichan, paragraph 56, generates backup image of existing operating system).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein the update agent is configured to create the operating system image by encapsulating the operating system and securing it with cryptographic keys supported by the update agent (Mallichan, paragraph 30, encryption key protocols).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein the update agent is configured to: check whether there is a backup version of the second operating system allocated within the storage provider; if there is the backup version allocated within the storage provider, retrieve the backup version and switch the first operating system with the backup version of the second operating system; and load the second operating system and delete the first operating system, otherwise; and set a status of the second operating system to active and a status of the first operating system to inactive (Mallichan, paragraph 45, restoration of operating system from backup image).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses a secure element comprising an update agent, the update agent being configured to perform the method (Ziat, paragraph 18, secure element).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Ziat and Mallichan discloses wherein the method further comprises retrieving and installing one of the inactive operating systems from the storage provider (Mallichan, paragraph 45, restoration of operating system from backup image).
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 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