DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The office acknowledges the following papers:
IDS filed on 5/5/2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Acar et al. (U.S. 2019/0102540) is the closest prior art reference to reading upon some, but not all of the independent claim limitations. Acar disclosed that dynamically generated code is restricted to being processed and stored within a reserved sandbox memory space. A verification process ensures that instructions cannot access memory space outside the sandbox memory space. An exception is allowed for certain authenticated instructions. However, Acar doesn't provide an exception for branches targeting one or more predefined address ranges outside of the sandbox memory space. Additionally, Acar doesn’t make mention of cryptographically signing with a first set of cryptographic keys for branch targets outside of an execution region.
Priority
The effective filing date for the subject matter defined in the pending claims in this application is 10/30/2020.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed 4/4/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 4/4/2025 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
Applicants can file an eTerminal Disclaimer (eTD) in utility applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 371, and design applications. Filing an eTD via EFS-Web is highly recommended due to an extensive backlog for processing paper TDs. However, applicants may still file a TD for manual review.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,447. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,299,447 contains every element of claims 1, 3, and 9 of the instant application and thus anticipates the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patently distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,299,447
1. A method, comprising:
6. A method, comprising:
monitoring, by a monitor circuit of a computer system, a dynamically-generated code sequence being executed in the computer system to ensure that the dynamically- generated code sequence meets one or more execution criteria, wherein the one or more execution criteria include a requirement that a branch target that is outside an execution region of a memory storing the dynamically-generated code sequence is cryptographically signed with one of a first set of cryptographic keys, and wherein the first set of cryptographic keys is not accessible to the dynamically-generated code sequence for cryptographic signing operations;
monitoring, by a monitor circuit of a computer system, a dynamically-generated code sequence being executed in the computer system to ensure that the dynamically-generated code sequence meets one or more execution criteria, wherein the one or more execution criteria specify that a branch target that is outside an execution region of a memory storing the dynamically- generated code sequence is permitted when the branch target is within one of one or more predefined address ranges outside of the execution region;
wherein the one or more execution criteria include a requirement that a branch target that is outside the execution region is signed with a key that is not accessible to the dynamically-generated code sequence. (claim 6)
detecting, by the monitor circuit, a violation of the one or more execution criteria; and
detecting, by the monitor circuit, a violation of the one or more execution criteria; and
and mitigating, by the monitor circuit, the violation based on detecting the violation.
forcing, by the monitor circuit, an exception based on detecting the violation.
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Dependent claim 3 is read upon by the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,447.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,484. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,816,484 contains every element of claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 of the instant application and thus anticipates the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patently distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,816,484
1. A method, comprising:
3. A method comprising:
monitoring, by a monitor circuit of a computer system, a dynamically-generated code sequence being executed in the computer system to ensure that the dynamically- generated code sequence meets one or more execution criteria, wherein the one or more execution criteria include a requirement that a branch target that is outside an execution region of a memory storing the dynamically-generated code sequence is cryptographically signed with one of a first set of cryptographic keys, and wherein the first set of cryptographic keys is not accessible to the dynamically-generated code sequence for cryptographic signing operations;
monitoring, in a monitor circuit in a processor in a computer system, a dynamically- generated code sequence being executed in a dynamic code execution region of the computer system to ensure that the dynamically-generated code sequence meets execution criteria, wherein the execution criteria specify that: none of a set of prohibited instructions is present in the dynamically-generated code sequence ;a branch target that is outside the dynamic code execution region is: cryptographically signed with one of a set of one or more cryptographic keys; and within one of one or more predefined address ranges outside of the dynamic code execution region;
wherein the set of one or more cryptographic keys are not accessible to the dynamically-generated code sequence for cryptographic signing operations. (Claim 3)
detecting, by the monitor circuit, a violation of the one or more execution criteria;
detecting a violation of the execution criteria by the monitor circuit; and
and mitigating, by the monitor circuit, the violation based on detecting the violation.
forcing, by the monitor circuit, an exception based on detecting the violation.
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Dependent claims 3 and 7 are read upon by the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,484.
Conclusion
The following is text cited from 37 CFR 1.111(c): In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chen et al. (U.S. 2009/0282477), taught validating untrusted native code modules.
Yee et al. (U.S. 2011/0138474), taught dynamic code insertion.
Sehr et al. (U.S. 2012/0042145), taught safe execution of untrusted code.
Ghose (U.S. 2014/0325239), taught control flow signatures.
Sierra et al. (U.S. 10,409,600), taught return attack protection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A. PETRANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5988. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on (571) 270-3995. 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.
/JACOB PETRANEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights