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 reply to the application filed on 3/20/25, in which, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 3/20/25 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 3/20/25 is accepted.
Double Patenting
1. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 18 of US 11475123 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 16 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 18 of US 11475123 B2.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-25 of US 11475123 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 13-15 of US 12259965 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 16 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in claims 1, 11, 13-15 of US 12259965 B2.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-15 of US 12259965 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070061594 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ginter’) in view of US 20120246641 A1 (hereinafter ‘Gehrman’).
As regards claim 8, Ginter (US 20070061594 A1) discloses: A computing device comprising: a non-private memory that is configured to store at least one computer program; (Ginter: Figs. 6-9, ¶452-¶460, ¶516, ¶591-¶640, i.e., the appliance 600 (i.e., the system) wherein the appliance is any kind of computing device such as a computer, a telephone (i.e., mobile device), wherein, Figs. 8-9, ¶479-¶558, i.e., the secure memories and the non-secure memories wherein OS, drivers, applications are stored in the both secure memories and the non-secure memories)
a private memory that is configured to store copies of the at least one computer program and a given computer program that is only stored in the private memory; and (Ginter: Figs. 6-9, ¶452-¶460, ¶516, ¶591-¶640, i.e., the appliance 600 (i.e., the system) wherein the appliance is any kind of computing device such as a computer, a telephone (i.e., mobile device), wherein, Figs. 8-9, ¶479-¶558, i.e., the secure memories and the non-secure memories wherein OS, drivers, applications are stored in the both secure memories and the non-secure memories)
However, Ginter does not but in analogous art, Gehrmann (US 20120246641 A1) teaches switching modes (protected to normal and normal to protected) by initiating a reboot of the system: a processor that is configured to: cause display of an interface on which are presented (i) a first graphical element that corresponds to a private mode, in which access to the given computer program is permitted, and (Gehrmann: Figs. 6a-6b, 7, 8a-8b, ¶10, ¶14, ¶18-¶20, ¶42-¶44, i.e., the guest interface that runs an interface with some applications) (ii) a second graphical element that corresponds to a non-private mode, in which access to the given computer program is forbidden, (Gehrmann: Figs. 6a-6b, 7, 8a-8b, ¶10, ¶14, ¶18-¶20, ¶42-¶44, i.e., the guest interface that runs an interface with some applications)
receive input that is indicative of a selection of either the first graphical element or the second graphical element, and initiate a reboot procedure, with the computing device rebooting in either the private mode or the non-private mode based on the input. (Gehrmann: Figs. 6a-6b, 7, 8a-8b, ¶14, ¶18-¶20, ¶42-¶44, i.e., switching the mode via boot/reboot sequence)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ginter to include initiating reboot in order to switch mode from a protected mode to normal mode and vice versa as taught by Gehrmann with the motivation to switch from one mode to the other to execute security critical functions (Gehrmann: ¶14)
As regards claim 9, Ginter et al combination teaches the computing device of claim 8, further comprising: a communications channel that is configured to copy data between the private memory and the non-private memory, wherein the communications channel is disabled when the computing device is in the non-private mode, and wherein the communications channel is enabled when the computing device is in the private mode. (Ginter: ¶488, i.e., disabling the interface)
As regards claim 11, Ginter et al combination teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive second input that is indicative of a selection of one of the at least one computer program stored in the non-private memory, and remove the selected computer program from the non-private memory. (Ginter: ¶2054-¶2063)
As regards claim 12, Ginter et al combination teaches the computing device of claim 11, wherein as part of the reboot procedure, the selected computer program is restored in the non-private memory from a copy stored in the private memory. (Ginter: ¶585, ¶1307-¶1313)
As regards claim 13, Ginter et al combination teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein the at least one computer program is stored in the non-private memory in accordance with a first encryption protocol, and wherein the copies of the at least one computer program and the given computer program are stored in the private memory in accordance with a second encryption protocol that is different than the first encryption protocol. (Ginter: ¶168-¶172)
As regards claim 14, Ginter et al combination teaches the computing device of The computing device of wherein the copies of the at least one computer program and the given computer program stored in the private memory are encrypted when the computing device is in the non-private mode, and wherein the copies of the at least one computer program and the given computer program stored in the private memory are decrypted when the computing device is in the private mode. (Ginter: ¶168-¶172)
As regards claim 15, Ginter et al combination teaches the computing device of claim 8, wherein the non-private memory and the private memory are different partitions of a common memory device. (Ginter: ¶168-¶172)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
