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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a main control unit that starts an OS by executing the BIOS program” in claim 1. The specification discloses that “the CPU 11 and the chipset 21 corresponds to a main control unit 10” in a paragraph [0018].
“a sub-control unit that manages peripheral devices and is able to access the BIOS storage unit” in claim 1. The specification discloses that “the embedded controller 31 (an example of a sub-control unit) is a one-chip microcomputer that monitors and controls various devices (peripheral devices, sensors, and the like) regardless of the system status of the laptop PC 1. In other words, the embedded controller 31 is an embedded controller that manages peripheral devices and is able to access the BIOS memory 32.” in the paragraph [0025].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU JINHUA; CHEN GUIMIN (WO 2008104117 A1), hereinafter ZHU, in view of Chen (United States Patent Application Publication US 2025/0392928), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, ZHU teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a BIOS storage unit that stores at least a BIOS program (Page 5 “The memory 2 is provided with a BIOS program memory area A and a BIOS program memory area B, both of which are used to store a BIOS program for booting the electronic device.”);
a main control unit that starts an OS by executing the BIOS program; wherein the BIOS storage unit has a first area that stores a current BIOS program and a second area for use in storing a BIOS update program (Page 5 “The memory 2 is provided with a BIOS program memory area A and a BIOS program memory area B, both of which are used to store a BIOS program for booting the electronic device.” Page 3 “the BIOS program storage area in the boot electronic device successfully restarting is the BIOS program storage area storing the upgraded BIOS program. The upgrade BIOS program is loaded into a BIOS program storage area that stores the original BIOS program.” Page 8 “the electronic device CPU” Booting the electronic device is a process of starting a computer or electronic device and loading its operating system. A memory includes two areas, such as a memory area A and a memory area B, that store a BIOS program and an upgrade BIOS program.), and
wherein the sub-control unit has a BIOS update unit that stores the BIOS update program acquired by the main control unit in the second area during the BIOS update process, executes a restart, and enables the update program stored in the second area as the BIOS program (Page 7 “The first loading unit 51 is configured to load a BIOS program for upgrading to another BIOS program storage area outside the BIOS program storage area that is currently booted by the electronic device when performing BIOS upgrade on the electronic device. Here, when the BIOS program storage area of the booting electronic device is the BIOS program storage area A, the BIOS program for upgrading is loaded into the BIOS program storage area B; the BIOS program storage area started by the current booting electronic device is the BIOS. In program memory area B, the BIOS program for upgrading is loaded into the BIOS program memory area A. The BIOS program for upgrading may be a BIOS program file detected and downloaded by the network online upgrade… when the electronic device restarts the power-on reset, the address output state of the second output pin of the switching unit 4 jumps, for example, assuming that the electronic device is currently powered on before the electronic device is restarted. The BIOS boot area is the BIOS program storage area A. At this time, the BIOS update area is the BIOS program storage area B, and the output of the second output pin of the corresponding switching unit 4 is 0, and the electronic device is powered on and reset.” When restarting the electronic device, the upgrade BIOS in the BIOS update area is executed.).
However, ZHU does not explicitly teach a sub-control unit that manages peripheral devices and is able to access the BIOS storage unit.
Chen teaches a sub-control unit that manages peripheral devices and is able to access the BIOS storage unit ([0024] “The firmware wireless network connectivity 114 may include program code that is part of the BIOS or UEFI, and that is executed by the embedded controller to access the network via the wireless network hardware 102.” [0032] “the firmware 104, in response to detecting setting of the flag, requests (256) via the firmware wireless network connectivity 114, connection (258) to a server 242 accessible over the network 103.” As discussed above in the claim interpretation, a sub-control unit invokes 112(f). As disclosed in the specification, a sub-control unit is interpreted as an embedded controller. The embedded controller controls connection to a server or access the network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of ZHU by incorporating the teaching of Chen of a sub-control unit that manages peripheral devices and is able to access the BIOS storage unit. They are all directed toward firmware in an electronic device. As well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the embedded controller utilizes lower cost components and offers greater customizations. Therefore, it would be advantageous to incorporate the teaching of Chen of a sub-control unit that manages peripheral devices and is able to access the BIOS storage unit in order to reduce cost and improve customization.
Regarding claim 2, ZHU in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above.
ZHU further teaches wherein the BIOS update unit changes a reference destination used to access the BIOS program from the BIOS program in the first area to the update program in the second area at a time of the restart of the BIOS update process to enable the update program as the BIOS program (Page 3 “The determining unit, after the electronic device restarts successfully, determining whether the BIOS program storage area for booting the electronic device restarting during the restart is a BIOS program storage area for storing the upgrade BIOS program and generating a corresponding judgment result” Page 7 “when the electronic device restarts the power-on reset, the address output state of the second output pin of the switching unit 4 jumps, for example, assuming that the electronic device is currently powered on before the electronic device is restarted. The BIOS boot area is the BIOS program storage area A. At this time, the BIOS update area is the BIOS program storage area B, and the output of the second output pin of the corresponding switching unit 4 is 0, and the electronic device is powered on and reset.”).
Regarding claim(s) 8, the claim(s) 8 is the method claim of the apparatus claim(s) 1. The claim(s) 8 does(do) not further teach or define the limitation over the limitations recited in the rejected claims above. Therefore, ZHU in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of the claim(s) 8.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU in view of Chen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kawazu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2022/0137953), hereinafter Kawazu.
Regarding claim 3, ZHU in view of Chen teaches all the limitations of the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, as discussed above.
However, ZHU in view of Chen does not teach wherein the BIOS program in the first area is set to be unchangeable by the OS, and wherein the BIOS update unit changes the setting of the update program to be unchangeable by the OS when enabling the update program as the BIOS program.
Kawazu teaches wherein the BIOS program in the first area is set to be unchangeable by the OS, and wherein the BIOS update unit changes the setting of the update program to be unchangeable by the OS when enabling the update program as the BIOS program ([0044] “The unauthorized rewriting prevention unit 355 protects the BIOS golden copy 403 and the second signature value 405 from an unauthorized rewriting command targeting the second SPI flash memory 214. The protection is necessary because the normal restoration of the BIOS 360 becomes impossible if the BIOS golden copy 403 and the second signature value 405 are falsified according to the unauthorized rewriting command.” [0081] “in step S612, the unauthorized rewriting prevention unit 355 sets the write protection of the BIOS golden copy 403.” [0083] “the unauthorized rewriting prevention unit 355 can determine the set or removed state of the write protection of the BIOS golden copy 403 by referring to the state of a resister included in the second SPI flash memory 214.” A BIOS golden copy is a currently used version, which is stored in a second SPI flash memory. After updating process of the BIOS, the write protection is set for the BIOS golden copy. As the BISO golden copy in the second SPI flash memory is protected by the write protection, the BIOS is also protected from the operating system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of ZHU in view of Chen by incorporating the teaching of Kawazu of wherein the BIOS program in the first area is set to be unchangeable by the OS, and wherein the BIOS update unit changes the setting of the update program to be unchangeable by the OS when enabling the update program as the BIOS program. They are all directed toward firmware. By protecting the BIOS from any access, the BIOS that is known to be a good working state can be protected from modification as a backup or a recovery when the BIOS with a newer version is corrupted. Therefore, it would be advantageous to incorporate the teaching of Kawazu of wherein the BIOS program in the first area is set to be unchangeable by the OS, and wherein the BIOS update unit changes the setting of the update program to be unchangeable by the OS when enabling the update program as the BIOS program in order to provide a security.
Regarding claim 4, ZHU in view of Chen and further in view of Kawazu teaches all the limitations of the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, as discussed above.
Kawazu further teaches wherein, after enabling the update program as the BIOS program, the BIOS update unit transfers the update program to the backup storage unit and stores the update program therein (FIG. 5A, [0054] “FIG. 5A is a flowchart illustrating an information processing method of the MFP 100, and illustrates the processing of updating the BIOS golden copy 403.” [0043] “If the version comparison unit 353 determines that the BIOS 360 is a newer version than the BIOS golden copy 403, the first update unit 354 updates the BIOS golden copy 403 using the BIOS 360.”), and
wherein, in response to failing to verify the BIOS program, the sub-control unit performs a recovery process of repairing the BIOS program that starts the OS using the backup stored in the backup storage unit ([0056] “If the signature verification has failed (NO in step S506), the falsification detection unit 351 determines that a falsification of the BIOS 360 is detected. The processing then proceeds to step S509.” [0066] “The falsification detection unit 351 determines that the BIOS golden copy 403 is falsified if the signature verification has failed (NO in step S516). The processing then proceeds to step S519.” [0068] “In step S519, the restoration unit 352 performs error processing without performing the processing of restoring the BIOS 360.” [0069] “If the second update unit 310 does not update the BIOS 360 in step S502, the first version information 401 of the BIOS 360 and the second version information 404 of the BIOS golden copy 403 keep matching each other. Thus, if the BIOS 360 is not updated, in step S511, the version comparison unit 353 determines that the first version information 401 is not newer than the second version information 404 (the processing proceeds to "NO" from step S511). In this case, the BIOS golden copy 403 is not updated.”).
Regarding claim 5, ZHU in view of Chen and further in view of Kawazu teaches all the limitations of the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, as discussed above.
Kawazu further teaches wherein the first area and the second area are each independent storage devices (FIG. 4 “SPI-FLASH 1 (FIRST STORAGE MEDIUM) 213” “SPI-FLASH 2 (SECOND STORAGE MEDIUM) 214”).
Regarding claim 6, ZHU in view of Chen and further in view of Kawazu teaches all the limitations of the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, as discussed above.
Kawazu further teaches wherein the storage device is an electrically rewritable memory chip, and is connected to the sub-control unit via an SPI (FIG. 2 “EMBEDDED CONTROLLER 212” “SPI-FLASH 1” “SPI-FLASH 2” [0043] “If the version comparison unit 353 determines that the BIOS 360 is a newer version than the BIOS golden copy 403, the first update unit 354 updates the BIOS golden copy 403 using the BIOS 360.” [0051] “this update can be realized by, for example, overwriting the BIOS 360 in the first SPI flash memory 213 with a BIOS for the update acquired via a network or via a USB memory.”).
Regarding claim 7, ZHU in view of Chen and further in view of Kawazu teaches all the limitations of the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, as discussed above.
ZHU, as modified above, further teaches wherein the storage device that constitutes the second area is an electrically rewritable memory chip or an SSD (Page 7 “when the BIOS program storage area of the booting electronic device is the BIOS program storage area A, the BIOS program for upgrading is loaded into the BIOS program storage area B; the BIOS program storage area started by the current booting electronic device is the BIOS. In program memory area B, the BIOS program for upgrading is loaded into the BIOS program memory area A. The BIOS program for upgrading may be a BIOS program file detected and downloaded by the network online upgrade.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JENSONNE et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0133270) teaches a computing device including a first memory to store current BIOS instructions and a second memory to store updated BIOS instructions.
Bhimanadhuni et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0032349) teaches an UEFI to reserve memory region to be used for updating firmware and not to be available for use by a host operating system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/HYUN SOO KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2176
