DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include informalities. In Figure 1, element 116, it is not clear what the abbreviation FCT is intended to represent. In Figures 3 and 4, step 306, the use of the term “virgin” is not clear in context. In Figures 3 and 4, the direction of flow of the lines connected to step 308 and the line connected to the No branch from decision 306 is not clear from the drawings as these appear to be missing any arrows indicating the directions. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 1, “a” should be deleted before “security data” because “data” is an uncountable noun which does not take the indefinite article.
In Claim 9, line 5, “a” should be deleted before “security data” because “data” is an uncountable noun which does not take the indefinite article.
In Claim 20, line 6, “a” should be deleted before “security data” because “data” is an uncountable noun which does not take the indefinite article.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 9-20 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 4 recites “having a respective address index…” in line 5. It is not grammatically clear what this phrase is intended to modify, which renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “a first status is to the first sector” in line 3. This phrase is grammatically unclear and appears to be missing a word from the phrase “is to”. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “a first status is to the first sector” in line 4. This phrase is grammatically unclear and appears to be missing a word from the phrase “is to”. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0405907.
In reference to Claim 1, Nagai discloses a method of updating a security data stored in a first sector of a non-volatile memory of a microcontroller, a first status being assigned to the first sector, the method comprising the following successive steps: erasing a content of a second sector of the non-volatile memory, different from the first sector (paragraph 0038, erasing blocks); writing a new version of the security data into the second sector (paragraph 0052, data into a new sector); and assigning the first status to the second sector (paragraphs 0056-0057, assigning valid status to new sector).
In reference to Claim 2, Nagai further discloses that each sector comprises a plurality of security data (paragraph 0074-0075, keys).
In reference to Claim 3, Nagai further discloses that, after the writing the new version of the security data into the second sector and before assigning the first status to the second sector, sequentially copying the security data stored in the first sector into the second sector (paragraph 0052, copying data to new area).
In reference to Claim 4, Nagai further discloses that the first sector and the second sector comprise memory spaces each referenced by an address index; and the security data of the first sector being each stored in one of the memory spaces of the first sector, and each copied into the second sector based on the memory space of the second sector, having a respective address index corresponding to the address index of the memory space associated with the security data of the first sector to be copied, being blank (paragraphs 0052-0058, new address).
In reference to Claim 5, Nagai further discloses that a second status is assigned to the first sector once the first status has been assigned to the second sector (paragraph 0057, old sector becomes invalid).
In reference to Claim 6, Nagai further discloses that, prior to the updating the security data, the first status is assigned to the first sector and the second status is assigned to the second sector (paragraphs 0056-0057).
In reference to Claim 7, Nagai further discloses that only the first sector assigned with the first status is read (paragraphs 0056-0057, only valid data read, not invalid data).
In reference to Claim 8, Nagai further discloses performing the erasing, the writing, and the assigning for each of multiple updating cycles (paragraphs 0052-0054, program/erase cycles).
Claims 9-11 and 15-19 are directed to microcontrollers having functionality corresponding to the methods of Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 4, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
In reference to Claim 12, Nagai further discloses that the copying of the security data from the first sector into the second sector is implemented by a state machine executed by the processor (see paragraph 0080, details of processor).
In reference to Claim 13, Nagai further discloses that the erasing of the content of the second sector is implemented by a memory control circuit as a result of a first software command (paragraphs 0080-0081, firmware and software).
In reference to Claim 14, Nagai further discloses that the writing of the new version of the security data into the second sector is implemented by the memory control circuit as a result of a second software command (paragraphs 0080-0081, firmware and software).
Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising a microcontroller corresponding to that of Claim 9, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (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 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights