CTNF 19/065,803 CTNF 93479 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. Specification 06-13 AIA The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is a recitation of the claims. The claims themselves are the legal bounds and legal description of the invention. The use of the legal phraseology of the claims should be avoided when writing the abstract. The abstract itself should be a short and concise summarization of the invention in its entirety, or at least the key features of the invention that can be summarized in the allotted space . Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Grisenthwaite et al. (US PGPub 2023/0342303, hereafter referred to as Grisenthwaite) . Regarding claim 1, Grisenthwaite teaches a method performed by an access control enforcer, comprising: receiving a transaction from a transaction initiator (Paragraph [0106], states a transaction request can be received) , the transaction including: (i) an identifier for a security state of the transaction initiator, (ii) a virtual address, and (iii) data indicating a type of access requested (Abstract and Paragraph [0106], the request can include a virtual address and domain ID. While not explicitly stated, since the request is for either a read or write access and there will be a check as to whether the request can be carried out based on the permissions associated with the address, it means there has to be data that indicates what type of request has been received. It should also be noted that the claims do not specify what the data is or how it indicates the type of request) , identifying a physical address based on the virtual address (Paragraph [0106], a physical address associated with the virtual address can be identified) , and determining whether the transaction is allowed to perform the indicated type of access with respect to the physical address based, at least in part, on the identifier for the security state of the transaction initiator (Paragraphs [0084] and [0106], it can be determined based on the information in the request as to whether or not the request can be performed based on the permissions associated with the address) . Regarding claim 2, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Grisenthwaite further teaches identifying a physical address space (PAS) based on the virtual address (Paragraph [0063] and [0084], states a physical address space can be identified) , and determining whether the transaction is allowed to perform the indicated type of access for the physical address using at least one table and the PAS (Paragraphs [0063], [0099], and [0106], as stated in the rejection to claim 1, a physical address space associated with the virtual address that is received can be identified and used to determine whether or not the particular request is allowed) . Regarding claim 3, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 2. Grisenthwaite further teaches wherein: the at least one table indicates that the physical address is associated with at least one PAS, and the determining is based on the at least one table indicating the physical address is associated with the at least one PAS (Paragraph [0084], a granular protection table can be used to identify the physical address space associated with the physical address and the protection information can then be obtained from the table to determine if the access request is allowed) . Regarding claim 4, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 3. Grisenthwaite further teaches wherein the at least one PAS comprises a non-secure PAS (Paragraph [0078], states that a PAS can be non-secure) . Regarding claim 6, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 3. Grisenthwaite further teaches wherein: the at least one table comprises a first table and a second table, the first table indicates that the physical address is associated with the at least one PAS, and the second table indicates a type of access permitted for the physical address associated with the at least one PAS (Fig. 7 and Paragraph [0108], shows the translation table which can indicate (the claims do not say how the indication is presented) that a physical address is associated with a particular address space. Paragraph [0084], the granular protection table can be considered the second table as it contains the permission information) . Regarding claim 7, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 6. Grisenthwaite further teaches wherein the determining comprises comparing the type of access being requested for the physical address to the type of access that is permitted for the physical address (Paragraph [0106], as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the permissions for a given address are checked to see if the request is one that is permitted) . Regarding claim 8, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 6. Grisenthwaite further teaches wherein the type of access indicated in the second table includes read access and write access, read access only, write access only, or no read access and no write access (Paragraph [0106], states that the check can be for whether the permissions is a read access, write access, write only, or read only) . Regarding claim 12, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Grisenthwaite further teaches wherein the determining is based on a table that indicates an access attribute, wherein the access attribute comprises at least one of: read and write access, read only access, write only access, or no read or write access (Paragraphs [0084] and [0106], a granular protection table can be used to store protection information that indicates which requests can be performed for which addresses) . Regarding claims 14-17 and 19, are the apparatus claims associated with claims 1-4 and 6. Since Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claims 1-4 and 6, it also teaches all the limitations to claims 14-17 and 19; therefore the rejections to claims 1-4 and 6 also apply to claims 14-17 and 19. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 1. Since Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 1, it also teaches all the limitations to claim 20; therefore the rejection to claim 1 also applies to claim 20 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 5, 9-11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grisenthwaite in view of Evans (US PGPub 2021/0365386) . Regarding claim 5, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 3. Grisenthwaite does not teach wherein: the transaction includes a stream identifier; and the determining is also based on the stream identifier. Evans teaches wherein: the transaction includes a stream identifier; and the determining is also based on the stream identifier (Paragraph [0047] and [0056], states that each device can have an associated stream ID and requests can have stream IDs associated with them and those stream IDs will have different translation data and permissions associated with them (meaning a determination will need to be made)) . Since both Grisenthwaite and Evans use IDs associated with requests it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Grisenthwaite to also use stream IDs as taught in Evans to obtain the predictable result of wherein: the transaction includes a stream identifier; and the determining is also based on the stream identifier. Regarding claim 9, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Grisenthwaite does not teach selecting a translation regime using the identifier for the security state of the transaction initiator, and identifying the physical address based on the virtual address and the selected translation regime. Evans teaches selecting a translation regime using the identifier for the security state of the transaction initiator, and identifying the physical address based on the virtual address and the selected translation regime (Paragraph [0054] and [0056]-[0057], states that each device can have different translation data and tables associated with them, and thus their corresponding stream ID. There are also different translation modes that can be used based on the request) . 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 teachings of Grisenthwaite to utilize the different translation modes as taught in Evans so to improves security by avoiding exposure of physical addresses to the device (Evans, Abstract). Regarding claim 10, Grisenthwaite and Evans teach all the limitations to claim 9. Evans further teaches wherein: the selected translation regime indicates that the virtual address does not need to be translated, and identifying the physical address based on the virtual address and the selected translation regime comprises setting the physical address to the virtual address (Fig. 6 and Paragraphs [0054] and [0056], has two different translation modes that will either translate a virtual address to a physical address via an intermediate physical address or not) . The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 9. Regarding claim 11, Grisenthwaite and Evans teach all the limitations to claim 9. Evans further teaches wherein: the transaction includes a stream identifier (Paragraph [0047] and [0056], as stated in the rejection to claim 5) , the selected translation regime indicates that the virtual address needs to be translated, and the method further comprises: selecting one or more page tables using the stream identifier, and the identifying comprises translating the virtual address to the physical address using the one or more page tables (Paragraph [0047] and [0056], as stated in the rejection to claim 9) . The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 9. Regarding claim 13, Grisenthwaite teaches all the limitations to claim 12. Grisenthwaite does not teach wherein the table indicates the access attribute based on the identifier for the security state of the transaction initiator and a stream identifier indicated by the transaction. Evans teaches wherein the table indicates the access attribute based on the identifier for the security state of the transaction initiator and a stream identifier indicated by the transaction (Paragraph [0056], each entry in the stream table can contain control information and “enable address translation service” information based on the stream ID) . 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 teachings of Grisenthwaite to utilize the different translation modes as taught in Evans so to improves security by avoiding exposure of physical addresses to the device (Evans, Abstract). Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is the apparatus claim associated with claim 5. Since Grisenthwaite and Evans teach all the limitations to claim 5, they also teach all the limitations to claim 18; therefore the rejection to claim 5 also applies to claim 18. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST. 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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. /NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 2 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 3 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 4 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 5 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 6 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 7 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 8 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 9 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 19/065,803 Page 10 Art Unit: 2132
Prosecution Insights