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
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of application 19086733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they substantially overlap in scope such that the minor differences between the claims correspond to obvious design choice differences which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because they are substantially the same elements recited at least in the independent claims with slight modifications of wording as can be seen in the table below:
Instant application 19087072
Copending application 19086733
9. A host device configured to control operations of a storage device that includes a protected area accessible by an authentication, the host device comprising:
an authentication data generator configured to generate host side authentication data using an authentication key and host metadata; and
a command generator configured to provide a command for instructing the storage device to access the protected area,
wherein the command comprises:
a first segment; and
a second segment including information indicating whether the first segment includes the host side authentication data.
1. A storage device comprising: a memory device configured to include a memory block providing a security function;
and a memory controller configured to receive a command including a host security message from a host and
to control the memory device to access the memory block based on an authentication performed using the host security message,
wherein the command includes:
a first segment; and
a second segment including information indicating whether the first segment includes the host security message.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PGPUB # 20190236031) in view of Shaw et al. (US PGPUB # 20160094526).
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, 12 (exemplary claim 9 is mapped) Kim discloses: A host device [Kim fig 1] configured to control operations of a storage device that includes a protected area accessible by an authentication [Kim fig 1;RPMB used to protect data via authentication and replay protection - Kim 0008], the host device comprising:
an authentication data generator configured to generate host side authentication data using an authentication key and host metadata [memory controller may include an RPMB engine configured to receive a write request for the RPMB from an external host - Kim 0008]; and
a command generator [controller 200 - Kim fig 1] configured to provide a command for instructing the storage device to access the protected area [performing an authentication operation on the write request by comparing a message authentication code in the write data with a message authentication code calculated by the storage device; and determining, based on a result of the authentication operation, whether to store the write data in the RPMB - Kim claim 5]., wherein the command comprises:
a first segment [Kim does not explicitly teach a command including first and second segments. Nevertheless in the same field of endeavor Shaw teaches means for security control wherein a security message/command includes first (payload) and second (header) segments - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12 ]; and
a second segment including information indicating whether the first segment includes the host side authentication data [ header comprises identifier data that is checked before decrypting payload data and processing payload data only in the event that the identifier data indicates (whether the first segment includes the host security message) - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12].
Kim does not explicitly teach a command including first and second segments. Nevertheless in the same field of endeavor Shaw teaches means for security control wherein a security message/command includes first (payload) and second (header) segments - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement a command including first and second segments in the invention of Kim as taught by Shaw because it would be advantageous for inhibiting/preventing operation of a computer when a secure command/message is not present (Shaw 0009) .
With respect to dependent claim 2 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the protected area is accessible a finite number of times [write counter monotonically increases a finite number of times - Kim 0056, 0066].
With respect to dependent claim 3 Kim/Shaw discloses the controller receives write data and controls the memory device to store the write data in the protected area according to the result of comparison of the host side authentication data and the device side authentication data [Kim claim 1 & 5].
With respect to dependent claim 4 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the host side authentication data includes address indicating data to be read from the protected area [address – Kim 0038, 0045-0047, fig 4].
With respect to dependent claim 5, 15 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the controller generates the device side authentication data using a secure hashalgorithm-256 (SHA-256) based on the metadata and the authentication key [Kim 0060].
With respect to dependent claim 6, 16 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the authentication key has 32 bytes data length [Kim 0055].
With respect to dependent claim 7 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the command includes: a first segment [Shaw teaches means for security control wherein a security message/command includes first (payload) and second (header) segments - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12]; and a second segment including information indicating whether the first segment includes the host side authentication data [header comprises identifier data that is checked before decrypting payload data and processing payload data only in the event that the identifier data indicates (whether the first segment includes the host security message) - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12].
With respect to dependent claim 8, 11, 13 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the information is non-zero value when the first segment includes the host side authentication data [header comprises non-zero identifier data that is checked before decrypting payload data and processing payload data only in the event that the identifier data indicates (whether the first segment includes the host security message) - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12].
With respect to dependent claim 10 Kim/Shaw discloses an authentication key storage configured to store the authentication key [Kim 0055].
With respect to dependent claim 12 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the command generator receives a response from the storage device, and wherein the response comprises a third segment and a fourth segment including information whether the third segment includes a device side authentication data. [messages between secure devices may have header/identifier and payload, header comprises identifier data that is checked before decrypting payload data and processing payload data only in the event that the identifier data indicates (whether the first segment includes the host security message) - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12. Shaw teaches means for security control wherein a security message/command includes first (payload) and second (header) segments - Shaw claims 4-5, 11-12 ]
With respect to dependent claim 14 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the device side authentication data includes a write count value indicating a number of write operations performed on the protected area [write counter - Kim 0056, 0066].
With respect to dependent claim 17 Kim/Shaw discloses wherein the device side authentication data includes a result code indicating a result of accessing the protected area by the command [write count incremented/increased for each successful result (authenticated write) - Kim 0056, 0058-0059, 0061, 0067, 0083].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee US PGPUB # 20180307625 teaches receiving, at a storage device, a request. The request includes a request message authentication code and write protect information. The write protect information includes at least one of start address information and length information. The start address information indicates a logical block address at which a memory area in a non-volatile memory of the storage device starts, and the length information indicates a length of the memory area. The method also includes generating, at the storage device, a message authentication code based on (1) at least one of the start address information and the length information, and (2) a key stored at the storage device; authenticating, at the storage device, the request based on the generated message authentication code and the request message authentication code; and processing, at the storage device, the request based on a result of the authenticating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARWAN AYASH whose telephone number is (571)270-1179. The examiner can normally be reached 9a-530p M-R.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached on 571-270-5935. 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.
/Marwan Ayash/Examiner, Art Unit 2133
/ROCIO DEL MAR PEREZ-VELEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights