DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner Notes
All claims have been reviewed for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 and 35 U.S.C. §101 (as set forth in MPEP 2106).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 15 April 2025 amends claims 1-13, 15-20. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “TEE management module” and “measurement module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song, “TZ-IMA: Supporting Integrity Measurement for Applications with ARM TrustZone”, published August 2022 (NPL Cite 1 from IDS dated 6/27/2025).
Referring to claim 15, Song discloses an application integrity verification procedure in a device that is implemented with a processor and memory (Page 352, Section 6: Evaluation), which meets the limitation of an apparatus comprising a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising. The comparison module of a trusted execution environment receiving a reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3: comparison module reads on the claimed management module; reference value reads on the claimed measurement request information & Page 345, Section 2.2 & Figure 1: shows secure world implemented as TEE), which meets the limitation of obtaining, by a trusted execution environment (TEE) management module, measurement request information. The reference values are utilized to verify the integrity of applications stored in the secure world TEE (Page 347, section 4.1 & Figure 2), which meets the limitation of measurement request information used to request to perform integrity measurement on a target component in the TEE. The comparison module sends a load measurement value request to the measurement agent (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3: load measurement value request reads on the claimed measurement indication information), which meets the limitation of sending, by the TEE management module, measurement indication information to a measurement module in response to the measurement request information indicating the measure module to perform integrity measurement on the target component. The comparison module receives the measurement value and compares the measurement value to the references value to determine the integrity of the application (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of receiving, by the TEE management module, an integrity measurement result fed back by the measurement module, wherein the integrity measurement result indicates whether the target component is complete.
Referring to claim 17, Song discloses that the comparison module receives the reference value in encrypted form such that the comparison module must decrypt the reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of performing, by the TEE management module, validity verification on the target component based on the measurement request information. Once the reference value is decrypted, the comparison module sends the request for the measurement value to the measurement agent (Page 348, Figure 3), which meets the limitation of when validity verification on the target component succeeds, sending, by the TEE management module, the measurement indication information to the measurement module.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, “TZ-IMA: Supporting Integrity Measurement for Applications with ARM TrustZone”, published August 2022 (NPL Cite 1 from IDS dated 6/27/2025), in view of Miao, CN 113626818.
Referring to claim 1, Song discloses an application integrity verification procedure wherein the comparison module of a trusted execution environment receiving a reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3: comparison module reads on the claimed management module; reference value reads on the claimed measurement request information & Page 345, Section 2.2 & Figure 1: shows secure world implemented as TEE), which meets the limitation of obtaining, by a trusted execution environment (TEE) management module of an electronic device, measurement information. The TEE is included in a local system along with a normal work implemented as a rich execution environment (REE) (Page 345, Section 2.2 & Figure 1; Page 346, Section 3.2 & Figure 2), which meets the limitation of wherein the electronic device comprises the TEE and a non-TEE. The secure world a secure OS/kernel mode (Page 345, section 2.2 & Figure 1) that includes the comparison module (Page 346, section 3.2 & Figure 2), which meets the limitation of the TEE comprises a first trusted zone and the TEE management module, [and the TEE management module is lightweight]. The secure world secure OS/kernel mode is isolated from the normal world/REE components and isolated from the user mode (Page 345, figure 1 & Page 346, figure 2), which meets the limitation of the first trusted zone is isolated from each component in the non-TEE, the first trusted zone is isolated from another trusted zone in the TEE. The secure world/TEE includes a measurement agent as part of the Secure OS/kernel mode (Page 346, section 3.2 & Figure 2: measurement agent reads on the claimed measurement module), which meets the limitation of the first trusted zone comprises a measurement module. The reference values are utilized to verify the integrity of applications stored in the secure world TEE (Page 347, section 4.1 & Figure 2), which meets the limitation of wherein the measurement request information is used to request to perform integrity measurement on a target component in the TEE. The comparison module sends a load measurement value request to the measurement agent (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3: load measurement value request reads on the claimed measurement indication information), which meets the limitation of sending, by the TEE management module, measurement indication information to the measurement module in response to the measurement request information indicating the measure module to perform integrity measurement on the target component. The comparison module receives the measurement value and compares the measurement value to the references value to determine the integrity of the application (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of receiving, by the TEE management module, an integrity measurement result fed back by the measurement module, wherein the integrity measurement result indicates whether the target component is complete.
Song does not specify that the comparison module is a lightweight module. Miao discloses the implementation of TEEs using lightweight components (Page 11, first full paragraph), which meets the limitation of the TEE management module is lightweight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the comparison module to have been implemented as a lightweight module in order to reduce chip costs as suggested by Miao (Page 21, last paragraph – Page 22, first paragraph).
Referring to claim 3, Song discloses that the comparison module receives the reference value in encrypted form such that the comparison module must decrypt the reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of performing, by the TEE management module, validity verification on the target component based on the measurement request information. Once the reference value is decrypted, the comparison module sends the request for the measurement value to the measurement agent (Page 348, Figure 3), which meets the limitation of when validity verification on the target component succeeds, sending, by the TEE management module, the measurement indication information to the measurement module.
Referring to claim 7, Song discloses an application integrity verification procedure wherein the comparison module of a trusted execution environment receiving a reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of wherein the target component is an application.
Referring to claim 8, Song discloses an application integrity verification procedure with a device having a secure world implemented as a TEE that includes a comparison module in a secure OS zone (Page 346, Section 3.2 & Figure 2: comparison module reads on the claimed management module; secure OS/kernel mode reads on the claimed first trusted zone), which meets the limitation of a trusted execution environment (TEE) having a first trusted zone and a TEE management module. The device includes a normal world implemented as a rich execution environment (REE) separate from the TEE (Page 345, Section 2.2 & Figure 1; Page 346, Section 3.2 & Figure 2), which meets the limitation of a non-TEE wherein the first trusted zone is isolated from each component in the non-TEE. The secure world secure OS/kernel mode is isolated from the user mode (Page 345, figure 1 & Page 346, figure 2), which meets the limitation of the first trusted zone is isolated from another trusted zone in the TEE. The secure world/TEE includes a measurement agent as part of the Secure OS/kernel mode (Page 346, section 3.2 & Figure 2: measurement agent reads on the claimed measurement module), which meets the limitation of the first trusted zone comprises a measurement module. The comparison module of a trusted execution environment receiving a reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3: comparison module reads on the claimed management module; reference value reads on the claimed measurement request information & Page 345, Section 2.2 & Figure 1: shows secure world implemented as TEE), which meets the limitation of the TEE management module is configured to obtain measurement information. The reference values are utilized to verify the integrity of applications stored in the secure world TEE (Page 347, section 4.1 & Figure 2), which meets the limitation of wherein the measurement request information is used to request to perform integrity measurement on a target component, and the target component is a component in the TEE. The comparison module sends a load measurement value request to the measurement agent (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3: load measurement value request reads on the claimed measurement indication information), which meets the limitation of send measurement indication information to the measurement module in response to the measurement request information, wherein the measurement indication information indicates the measure module to perform integrity measurement on the target component. The measurement agent generates the measurement value from the application by calculating a hash value of the application (Page 346: Measurement Agent), which meets the limitation of the measurement module is configured to perform integrity measurement on the target component based on the measurement request information, and obtain an integrity measurement result, wherein the integrity measurement result indicates whether the target component is complete. The comparison module receives the measurement value, from the measurement agent (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of feed back the integrity measurement result to the TEE management module.
Song does not specify that the comparison module is a lightweight module. Miao discloses the implementation of TEEs using lightweight components (Page 11, first full paragraph), which meets the limitation of the TEE management module is lightweight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the comparison module to have been implemented as a lightweight module in order to reduce chip costs as suggested by Miao (Page 21, last paragraph – Page 22, first paragraph).
Referring to claim 10, Song discloses that the comparison module receives the reference value in encrypted form such that the comparison module must decrypt the reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of wherein the TEE management module is configured to perform validity verification on the target component based on the measurement request information. Once the reference value is decrypted, the comparison module sends the request for the measurement value to the measurement agent (Page 348, Figure 3), which meets the limitation of when validity verification on the target component succeeds, sending the measurement indication information to the measurement module.
Referring to claim 14, Song discloses an application integrity verification procedure wherein the comparison module of a trusted execution environment receiving a reference value (Page 348, Section 4.2 & Figure 3), which meets the limitation of wherein the target component is an application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang, WO 2022/154195, discloses mobile trusted execution environment that provides for the safe execution of applications.
Kim, KR 20210112923, discloses firmware verification using a system on chip system.
Jin, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0328769, discloses the utilization of trusted execution environments to process requests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights