DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application # 19/093,487 filed on March 28, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are directed toward a CHECK METHOD AND APPARATUS.
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 . 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 10-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over KOIKE et al. (US 2023/0237151, Filed: Sep. 2, 2022), hereinafter referred to as KOIKE.
As per claim 1, KOIKE teaches a check method, applied to an electronic device comprising a first electronic fuse, a second electronic fuse, a first memory, and a second memory (The metadata server 200 checks whether or not times of the time server 300 and the validity period setting server 100 have been falsified by checking the absolute time and the relative time. KOIKE, [0137]), and the method comprises:
obtaining a first count value, a second count value, a first value, and a second value, wherein the first count value is a value of a counter of the first electronic fuse, the second count value is a value of a counter of the second electronic fuse, the first value indicates a status of first data, the first data is data stored in the first memory, the second value indicates a status of second data, the second data is data stored in the second memory, a check relationship exists between the first count value and the first value, and a check relationship exists between the second count value and the second value (first metadata including identification information of the firmware; a time manager configured to manage time; a validity period determiner configured to determine a first validity period with respect to the first metadata based on time acquired from the time manager; a counter configured to count up a value per unit time; an acquirer configured to acquire a first counter value being a value of the counter with respect to the first metadata; a storage configured to store one or more entries in which second metadata including identification information of firmware, a second validity period being a validity period of the second metadata, and a second counter value being a value of the counter having been acquired with respect to the second metadata are associated with each other; and a determiner configured to detect the second metadata including same identification information as the first metadata, acquire the second validity period and the second counter value from the entry including the detected second metadata, KOIKE, [0024]); and
determining, based on the first count value, the second count value, the first value, and the second value, whether the first data and the second data in the electronic device are abnormal (and detect falsification of the first validity period based on the first counter value and the first validity period and on the second counter value and the second validity period. KOIKE, [0024]).
As per claim 2, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the first count value, the second count value, the first value, and the second value, whether the first data and the second data in the electronic device are abnormal comprises: determining, based on the first count value and the first value, whether the first data in the electronic device is abnormal; and determining, based on the second count value and the second value, whether the second data in the electronic device is abnormal (KOIKE, [0046]).
As per claim 3, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining, based on the first count value and the first value, whether the first data in the electronic device is abnormal comprises: inputting the first count value into a check function as a parameter to obtain a first check value; and determining, based on the first check value and the first count value, whether the first data is abnormal (KOIKE, [0043]-[0046]).
As per claim 4, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining, based on the second count value and the second value, whether the second data in the electronic device is abnormal comprises: inputting the second count value into a check function as a parameter to obtain a second check value; and determining, based on the second check value and the second count value, whether the second data is abnormal (KOIKE, [0043]-[0046]).
As per claim 10, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising: updating the second count value to generate an updated second count value; and updating the second value based on the updated second count value (KOIKE, [0187]-[0188], [0205]).
As per claim 11, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the updating the second count value comprises: updating the second count value when the first count value differs from the second count value (KOIKE, [0203]).
As per claim 12, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the updating the second value based on an updated second count value comprises: inputting the updated second count value into a check function as a parameter to obtain an updated second value (KOIKE, [0206]-[0210]).
Claims 14-16, 19, and 20 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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.
Claims 5-9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOIKE et al. (US 2023/0237151, Filed: Sep. 2, 2022), in view of MENG et al., (US 2016/0335014, Nov. 17, 2016), hereinafter referred to as KOIKE and MENG.
As per claim 5, KOIKE teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach replacing the first data, MENG however teaches comprising: when the first data is abnormal and the second data is normal, replacing the first data stored in the first memory with the second data stored in the second memory (in response to the receiving of the signal to restore the firmware program, deactivating the first storage region and activating the second storage region. The method may further include loading in the terminal the back-up firmware program stored in the activated second storage region. MENG, [0006]).
KOIKE in view of MENG are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KOIKE in view of MENG. This would have been desirable because when the entry in which the second metadata includes same identification information as the identification information included in the first metadata is present in the storage, the storage is configured to overwrite the entry based on the first entry (KOIKE, Claim 12).
As per claim 6, KOIKE in view of MENG teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: when the first data is normal and the second data is abnormal, replacing the second data stored in the second memory with the first data stored in the first memory (in response to the receiving of the signal to restore the firmware program, deactivating the first storage region and activating the second storage region. The method may further include loading in the terminal the back-up firmware program stored in the activated second storage region. MENG, [0006]).
KOIKE in view of MENG are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KOIKE in view of MENG. This would have been desirable because when the entry in which the second metadata includes same identification information as the identification information included in the first metadata is present in the storage, the storage is configured to overwrite the entry based on the first entry (KOIKE, Claim 12).
As per claim 7, KOIKE in view of MENG teaches the method according to claim 6, comprising: updating the first count value to generate an updated first count value; and updating the first value based on the updated first count value (S1604, KOIKE, FIG. 15).
As per claim 8, KOIKE in view of MENG teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the updating the first count value comprises: updating the first count value when a data update is performed on the first data (S1603, KOIKE, FIG. 15).
As per claim 9, KOIKE in view of MENG teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the updating the first value based on an updated first count value comprises: inputting the updated first count value into a check function as a parameter to obtain an updated first value (S1605- S1606, KOIKE, FIG. 15)
KOIKE in view of MENG are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KOIKE in view of MENG. This would have been desirable because when the entry in which the second metadata includes same identification information as the identification information included in the first metadata is present in the storage, the storage is configured to overwrite the entry based on the first entry (KOIKE, Claim 12).
Claims 7 and 18 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLEG KORSAK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights