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 . 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.
Claims 21-26 are newly added.
Claims 14-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 9-10 of remarks, Applicant argues:
“ First, the reference Sariou fails to disclose all elements of the present claims. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part: "determine, by the system, one or more access control policies ... [and] apply, by the system, the one or more control commands based on the one ormore access policies by quoting a different section of Saroiu that relates to Service Level Agreements (SLAs). See pages 5-6 of the Office Action citing para [0041] of Saroiu. An SLA is distinct from an access policy. According to Saroiu, an SLA is "a contract between the provider of a service and its internal or external end-user or customer that defines what services the provider will offer and the level of performance it must meet." See para. [0055] of Saroiu. Further, Saroiu describes that an SLA can include terms including metrics covering technical aspects of service like availability, throughput, latency, etc. See para. [0056] of Saroiu. Thus, in contrast to an access policy of the present technology, and in contrast to the access connections recited in paragraph [0129] of Saroiu, an SLA is merely an agreement between a network provider and customer related to the performance of a network slice. For example, an SLA may require that a customer is given a particular bandwidth of the network slice or that the customers network activity operates below a particular latency metric. Additionally, the Office conflates an unspecified "command" of Saroiu to a particular "control command" of the present technology. In paragraph [0131], Saroiu briefly mentions that a user "may enter commands and information into the computer system through input devices such as a keyboard." Saroiu does not define its reference to the "commands." In contrast, the present technology relates to particular control commands. For example, a control command of the present technology may be a direction to move south west sent from a drone controller to a drone that is in operation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant contends that the Office improperly conflates access control policies with service level agreements (SLAs) in Saroiu and therefore fails to show that Saroiu discloses determining access control policies and applying control commands based on such policies. This argument is not persuasive because it relies on an unduly narrow interpretation of “access control policies” that is not supported by the claim language.
Claim 1 does not limit “access control policies” to identity-based authorization rules that determine who is permitted to control a system, as asserted by Applicant. Rather, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), access control policies encompass any policy rules that govern whether, how, and under what conditions a system or service may be accessed or operated. Saroiu expressly teaches determining whether users are allowed to access particular connections and services provided by the datacenter (¶129) which constitutes determining access control policies under this BRI.
Applicant’s further assertion that SLAs are merely contractual agreements and therefore distinct from access control policies is unavailing. While Saroiu describes SLAs as agreements defining performance characteristics, Saroiu also teaches that such policies enforced by configuring network slices and controlling system behavior to meet those requirements (see, e.g., ¶41). The fact that Saroiu describes these policies in the context of SLAs does nto preclude them from functioning as access control policies, because they directly govern access to network resources, permitted services, and operational modes of communication.
Morever, the Office does not improperly conflate unrelated disclosures by relying on different portions of Saroiu. A single reference may be relied upon for multiple teachings drawn from different sections, provided the references as a whole reasonably teaches the claimed limitations. When read as a whole, Saroiu discloses a policy-driven system in which authorization determinations and policy enforcement mechanisms control system communication behavior. Accordingly, Saroiu reasonably teaches determining one or more access control policies and applying control commands based on those policies, as recited in claim 1.
On pg. 10-11, applicant argues:
“Further, Saroiu fails to disclose applying one or more control commands based on the one or more access control policies as recited in the amended claim 1 - regardless of the definition of an access control policy or the definition of command. The Office asserts that paragraph [0041] of Saroiu discloses applying such control commands based on []one or more access control policies. See pages 5-6 of the Office Action. However, paragraph [0041] of Saroiu merely describes that a network slice can be created to meet the requirements of an SLA (e.g., that the network slice can be configured to provide a particular bandwidth for a customer's network activities). Accordingly, Saroiu fails to describe applying particular commands, let alone control commands, to a system (i.e., a drone or a drone controller) based on particular access control policies. ”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require Saroiu explicitly label an action as “applying control commands”, nor does it require disclosure of particular command syntax or device-specific instruction (e.g., drone movement commands). Under the BRI, “applying…control commands based on…access control policies” encompasses implementing policy-driven control actions that govern system communication behavior and operational mode.
Saroiu teaches that policy determinations, including those derived from SLAs, are enforced by configuring and controlling network behavior, including how systems communication, which services are enabled, and which performance characteristics are applied (see, e.g. ¶41). Configuring a network slice to meet policy requirements necessarily involves issuing and enforcing control instructions within the system to cause the system to operate in a specific manner. Such enforcement constitutes applying control commands based on policy determinations, even if the reference does not describe low-level device commands or use Applicant’s terminology.
Accordingly, Saroiu is not require to disclose explicit execution of device-specific commands to satisfy this limitation. When read as a whole, Saroiu reasonably teaches applying control mechanisms based on policy determinations to cause the system to communicate in a particular operational mode.
On pg. 11, applicant further argues:
“Beyond Saroiu, the references Kotla and Jaubert also fail to disclose the elements of claim 1 as asserted by the Office. In relevant part, claim 1 recites: "receive, by the system, one or more data messages from the peer system, wherein the one or more data messages are received with encryption, and wherein a latency of the one or more control commands is lower than a latency of the one or more data messages;." Kotla, as cited by the Office, merely describes that a system can receive an encrypted message. See pages 7-8 of the Office Action. Jaubert, on the other hand, does disclose that unencrypted command message can be transmitted from a server and that these unencrypted command messages have a lower processing overhead than an encrypted command message. See para. [0092] of Jaubert. However, Jaubert relates only to command messages. Neither Kotla nor Jaubert teach encrypted data messages (e.g., a video file transmitted from a drone) with a latency higher than that of an unencrypted control command.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require the prior art to expressly label or quantify latency differences between encrypted messages and unencrypted control commands. It merely requires that such a relationship exist. Kotla teaches receiving encrypted messages, which inherently incur encryption and decryption overhead, while Joubert expressly teaches that unencrypted command messages have lower processing overhead than encrypted messages (¶92), which corresponds to lower latency. When combined, these teachings would predictably result in encrypted messages having higher latency than unencrypted control commands. The claim does not limit the encrypted data messages to any specific data type, nor does it require an explicit comparison within a single reference.
On pg. 11-12, applicant argues:
“In addition to the above deficiencies, the Applicant believes that certain references of the present rejection teach away from the use of other references used for the present rejection. As is well established, if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In one example of a reference teaching away, the Office uses Kotani and Krikorian to reject a portion of claim 1 where the system "receive[s], by the system, one or more control commands from the peer system without encryption based on the hardware-based trust relationship." However, modifying Kotani as described in Krikorian would render Kotani unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Kotani seeks the secure transfer of information to support migration between two or more platforms. See para. [0038] of Kotani. Accordingly, Kotani describes verifying a public key infrastructure (PKI) module of a first platform, verifying a PKI module of a second platform, and then directly transferring encrypted data from the first platform to the second platform. See Figure 5 and paras. [0059] and [0060] of Kotani. The PKI module of the first platform specifically encrypts the data such that only the second platform, with its corresponding key infrastructure, can decrypt the data. See paras. [0059] and [0060] of Kotani. Thus, Kotani's teaching relates specifically to the encryption of data when sent between systems after a trust is established instead of removing encryption of data sent between systems after a trust is established, as recited in claim 1 above. Krikorian does teach sending an unencrypted command, depending on a security level of said command. See para. [0059] of Krikorian. However, Krikorian does not describe sending an unencrypted command based on a hardware trust relationship. In fact, Krikorian teaches the opposite by teaching sending an unencrypted command when concern for security falls below a threshold. Further, Krikorian does not teach why a person having ordinary skill in the art would take a reference that requires encryption for enhanced security, like Kotani, and combine it with a reference that teaches sending unencrypted messages when concern for security is low, like Krikorian, to derive a system that receives one or more unencrypted control commands from the peer system based on a hardware- based trust relationship. Instead, modifying Kotani to use the lack of encryption of Krikorian undermines the intended purpose of Kotani. ”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to the argument that the references teach away, the courts found that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP § 2123.
Kotani and Krikorian do not "criticize", "discredit" or otherwise "discourage the solution”, nor do they render each other unsatisfactory for their intended purposes. Kotani teaches establishing a hardware based trust relationship using PKI to ensure secure communication, while Krikorian teaches that certain control commands may be transmitted without encryption when appropriate. The Office does not modify Kotani to remove encryption from all communications, but rather relies on Krikorian to teach that unencrypted control commands may be used in appropriate contexts, which is consistent with Kotani’s goal of secure operation once trust is established. Using unencrypted control commands based on a trusted relationship does not defeat Kotani’s purpose of secure system interaction, but instead represents a predictable design choice that balances security and performance. Accordingly, the references are complementary, rather than teaching away, and In re Gordon is not applicable.
On pg. 12, applicant argues:
“Finally, in addition to the deficiencies described above, the Applicant believes that it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to derive the technology claimed above based on the five references Kotani, Saroiu, Krikorian, Kotla, and Joubert that collectively span a variety of technical fields including data migration, 5G network slicing, satellite control, cryptography, and one-time password software applications.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited references are directed to secure communications, control signaling, and policy based management of networked systems, and therefore are reasonably related and analogous to the claimed subject matter. The fact that the references arise from different application contexts does not preclude their combination, as each addresses known aspects of trusted communication, encryption, and control latency. A POSITA would have been motivated to combined these teaches to achieve predictable results, and Applicant has not identified any technical incompatibility or unexpected results that would negate obviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2010/0023755 A1) (hereinafter “Kotani”) in view of Saroiu et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2022/0407890 A1) (hereinafter “Saroiu”), Krikorian et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2013/0077561 A1) (hereinafter “Krikorian”); and further in view of Kotla et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2012/0198235 A1) (hereinafter “Kotla”) and Joubert (U. S. PGPub. No. 2010/0313019 A1) (hereinafter “Joubert”)
Regarding claim 1, Kotani teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to (Kotani: [0076] In an embodiment, the present invention also includes computer-readable storage media enabling a computer to execute the processes or operations described herein, and the processes or operations may be implemented in software and/or computing hardware):
receive, by the system, at boot time, key pairs from a peer system (Kotani: [0044] The PKI module 55receives the key pair and hands over the key pair to the TPM module 56)
establish, by the system, a hardware-based trust relationship between the system and the peer system based on the key pairs and further based on a certificate of authority (Kotani: [0009] In order to ensure authenticity and security of information, a level of trust may be established between communicating devices. To this end, the Trusted Computing Group.TM. (TCG) has defined a set of specifications for establishing and maintaining trust between two or more devices based on a hardware root of trust. [0040], enables migration of information using a trust established between two or more platforms in accordance with hardware based report(s) corresponding to the platforms. [0064] Preferably, the user, equipment and/or equipment environment authentication is hardware based, however, an indication as to authorization or non-authorization may be software based. For example, authentication of the PKI module 55 and the BIO module 54 (FIG. 4) may be software based where mutual authentication is established between these modules. Meaning, the modules located inside the single chip 50 have established a trust among each other).
Wherein the certificate of authority is securely stored in memory of the system and the peer system (Kotani: [0043] The TPM module 56 of platform 1 receives the certificate and stores the certificate therein);
(Kotani: [0009] In order to ensure authenticity and security of information, a level of trust may be established between communicating devices. To this end, the Trusted Computing Group.TM. (TCG) has defined a set of specifications for establishing and maintaining trust between two or more devices based on a hardware root of trust)
Kotani does not disclose:
determine, by the system, one or more access control policies;
receive, by the system, one or more control commands from the peer system without encryption
wherein a latency of the one or more control commands is lower than a latency of the one or more data messages;
apply, by the system, the one or more control commands based on the one or more access control policies and further based on a state of the system thereby causing the system to communicate with the peer system in an ultra-reliable, a secure, and a low latency mode.
However, in an analogous art, Saroiu teaches:
determine, by the system, one or more access control policies (Saroiu: [0129], provides for access control service 2517 determines whether users are allowed to access particular connections and services provided at the datacenter 2500. Directory and identity management service 2518 authenticates user credentials for tenants on datacenter 2500);
apply, by the system, the one or more control commands (Saroiu: [0131], A user may enter commands and information into the computer system 2600 through input devices such as a keyboard 2666 and pointing device 2668 such as a mouse. Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, trackball, touchpad, touchscreen, touch-sensitive device, voice-command module or device, user motion or user gesture capture device, or the like) based on the one or more access control policies (Saroiu [0041], provide for A 5G network slice may be dynamically created consisting of an end-to-end composition of all the varied network resources and infra structure needed to satisfy the specific performance and requirements of a particular service class or application that may meet some pre-defined service level agreement (SLA))
and further based on a state of the system thereby causing the system to communicate with the peer system in an ultra-reliable, a secure, and a low latency mode. (Saroiu: [0056], the URLLC slice type may require strict resource allocation to guarantee reliability and low latency under a corresponding SLA. [0069], provides for a the trusted computing hardware may be deployed in various nodes of the 5G network including the RAN 420 and the datacenters 425, 430, and 435 supporting the mobile core and cloud networks, as shown, to provide secure end-to-end data communications over the network).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kotani’s method of exchanging keys to establishing hardware-trust by applying Saroiu’s method of determining access control policies and apply commands, in order to set up level access to sensitive information based on user’s roles, policies or rules.
Furthermore, the combination of Kotani in view of Saroiu does not disclose:
receive, by the system, one or more control commands from the peer system without encryption
However, in an analogous art, Krikorian teaches:
receive, by the system, one or more control commands from the peer system without encryption (Krikorian: [0059], provides for desired level of security 115 may not require encryption (=without encryption) of some of commands 128. For example, owner 106 of satellite 114 may not need to encrypt commands in commands 128 generated by owner 106. [0182], provides for When commands 128 are received in an unencrypted (=without encryption) form);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Krikorian’s method of receiving commands without encryption, in order to receive signals by trusted receiver. The motivation is to configure the information management system to avoid conflicts between the commands sent by the communications system to the satellite from different operators in the plurality of operators that cause an undesired operation of the satellite (Krikorian: [0014]).
Furthermore, the combination of Kotani in view of Saroiu and Krikorian does not disclose:
receive, by the system, one or more data messages from the peer system, wherein the one or more data messages are received with encryption, and
However, in an analogous art, Kotla teaches:
receive, by the system, one or more data messages from the peer system, wherein the one or more data messages are received with encryption, and (Kotla: [0001] The use of decentralized distributed systems is growing. These systems typically comprise weakly connected nodes and are mostly decentralized. Examples of decentralized distributed systems include online games, messaging applications, cooperative data sharing systems such as peer-to-peer file sharing systems, and weakly consistent replication systems. [0006],An encrypted message is received by the receiving computing device from the sending computing device)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu and Krikorian by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Kotla of receiving encrypted message in order to secure transmission. The motivation is to prevent a taint attack, a read-denial attack in decentralized distributed system which include online games, messaging applications, cooperative data sharing systems such as peer-to-peer file sharing systems, and weakly consistent replication systems (Kotla: [0002-0003]).
Furthermore, the combination of Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla does not disclose:
wherein a latency of the one or more control commands is lower than a latency of the one or more data messages;
However, in an analogous art, Joubert teaches:
and wherein a latency of the one or more control commands is lower than a latency of the one or more data messages (Joubert: [0092], the unencrypted command messages remain useful when modifying non-critical data on the OTP security application. Advantageously, unencrypted command messages have a lower processing overhead than encrypted command messages);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Joubert of lower processing overhead for the unencrypted message. The motivation is managing a one-time password security software application to gain access to secure networks (Joubert: [0006]).
Regarding claim 4, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the peer system comprises a drone, an autonomous vehicle, or an autonomous robot (Saroiu: [0047], provides for FIG. 2 shows user equipment (UE) 200 that may be representative of the wide variety of device types that may utilize 5G networking including, for example and not by way of limitation, smartphones and computing devices, drones, robots, process automation equipment, sensors, control devices, vehicles, transportation equipment, tactile inter action equipment, virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR) devices, industrial machines, and the like).
Regarding claim 5, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches :
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the one or more control commands are associated with a first network slice (Saroiu: [0048], provides for The URLLC slice 215 may be configured for mobile critical-infrastructure low-latency usage scenarios including applications such as remote-control operations in medical and industrial environments, VR and AR, robotics and automation, etc.).
and the one or more data messages are associated with a second network slice (Saroiu: [0048], provides for the configuration of eMBB slice 210 may be optimized for broadband-everywhere usage scenarios across a wide coverage area for applications such as consumer entertainment (e.g., video, gaming, streaming), remote offices, etc., where maximized network speeds and data rates are desired and high traffic volumes are typically experienced).
Regarding claim 6, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above),
wherein the first network slice comprises an ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) slice service type (Saroiu: [0048], provides for The URLLC slice 215 may be configured for mobile critical-infrastructure low-latency usage scenarios including applications such as remote-control operations in medical and industrial environments, VR and AR, robotics and automation, etc.),
and the second network slice comprises an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) or a massive internet of things (MloT) slice service type (Saroiu: [0049], provide for The MioT slice 220 may be configured for optimal handling of Io T, control, and sensor applications relating to logistics, construction, and metering in vertical industries such as construction and agriculture).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu and Krikorian by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Saroiu of using 5G network including URLLC and MMTC system for communication order to get higher performance and improved efficiency power for communication.
Regarding claim 7, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 1 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (method). For this reason, the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 2 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (method). For this reason, the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 3 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (method). For this reason, the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The method of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above),
wherein the drone is further configured to communicate with the drone controller via a 4G network, a 5G network, or a Wi-Fi wireless communication network (Saroiu: [0034], provides for The International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) recommendation for 2020 from the International Telecommunication Union Radio communication Sector (ITU-R M.2083-0) envisions usage scenarios for 5G networks that include: Mobile Broadband (MBB), as indicated by reference numeral 105; Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications (URLLC) 110; and Massive Machine Type Communications (MMTC) 115, as shown in the usage scenario footprint 100 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 4 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (method). For this reason, the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 5 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (method). For this reason, the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 6 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (method). For this reason, the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 13.
Regarding Claim 21, Kotani teaches:
at least one hardware processor (Kotani: [0063], Equipment environment authorization 96 may be based on configuration information including software, hardware and peripheral components implemented in an equipment and status of thereof such as version, security patch level and so on. Information pertaining to BIOS level, BIOS load, OS, HW, USB, peripheral, hard disk, CPU, application, etc., of an equipment or device may be authenticated. For example, the kind of software and/or hardware being used by a device may be stored in a database and current status of the software and/or hardware of the device may be authenticated based on a comparison of status obtained from the device with information in the database) and at least one non-transitory memory, coupled to the at least one hardware processor and storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to (Kotani: [0076] In an embodiment, the present invention also includes computer-readable storage media enabling a computer to execute the processes or operations described herein, and the processes or operations may be implemented in software and/or computing hardware):
receive, at boot time, key pairs from a peer system (Kotani: [0044] The PKI module 55receives the key pair and hands over the key pair to the TPM module 56);
establish a hardware-based trust relationship between the system and the peer system based on the key pairs and further based on a certificate of authority (Kotani: [0009] In order to ensure authenticity and security of information, a level of trust may be established between communicating devices. To this end, the Trusted Computing Group.TM. (TCG) has defined a set of specifications for establishing and maintaining trust between two or more devices based on a hardware root of trust (=hardware-based trust). [0040], enables migration of information using a trust established between two or more platforms in accordance with hardware based report(s) corresponding to the platforms. [0064] Preferably, the user, equipment and/or equipment environment authentication is hardware based, however, an indication as to authorization or non-authorization may be software based. For example, authentication of the PKI module 55 and the BIO module 54 (FIG. 4) may be software based where mutual authentication is established between these modules. Meaning, the modules located inside the single chip 50 have established a trust among each other).
wherein the certificate of authority is securely stored in memory of the system and the peer system (Kotani: [0043] The TPM module 56 of platform 1 receives the certificate and stores the certificate therein);
(Kotani: [0009] In order to ensure authenticity and security of information, a level of trust may be established between communicating devices. To this end, the Trusted Computing Group.TM. (TCG) has defined a set of specifications for establishing and maintaining trust between two or more devices based on a hardware root of trust)
Kotani does not explicitly disclose:
determine one or more access control policies between the system and the peer system;
However, in an analogous art, Saroiu disclose:
determine one or more access control policies between the system and the peer system (Saroiu: [0129], provides for access control service 2517 determines whether users are allowed to access particular connections and services provided at the datacenter 2500. Directory and identity management service 2518 authenticates user credentials for tenants on datacenter 2500);
and execute the one or more control commands (Saroiu: [0131], A user may enter commands and information into the computer system 2600 through input devices such as a keyboard 2666 and pointing device 2668 such as a mouse. Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, trackball, touchpad, touchscreen, touch-sensitive device, voice-command module or device, user motion or user gesture capture device, or the like) based on the one or more access control policies (Saroiu [0041], provide for A 5G network slice may be dynamically created consisting of an end-to-end composition of all the varied network resources and infra structure needed to satisfy the specific performance and requirements of a particular service class or application that may meet some pre-defined service level agreement (SLA))
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kotani’s method of exchanging keys to establishing hardware-trust by applying Saroiu’s method of determining access control policies in order to providing a hardware-based trust model that is effectively deployed across distributed and diverse physical infrastructure of a 5G network in both data and control planes, improvements in slice security and application and data integrity are realized (Saroiu: [0006]).
Kotani in view of Saroiu does not explicitly disclose:
receive, , wherein the one or more unencrypted control commands, when executed, cause an action by the system.
transmit, to the peer system, one or more encrypted data messages that have a first latency that is higher than a second latency of the one or more unencrypted control commands;
and execute the one or more control commands based on the one or more access control policies and further based on a state of the system thereby causing the action by the system.
However, in an analogous art, Krikorian teaches:
receive, , when executed (Krikorian: [0059], provides for desired level of security 115 may not require encryption (=without encryption) of some of commands 128. For example, owner 106 of satellite 114 may not need to encrypt commands in commands 128 generated by owner 106. [0182], provides for When commands 128 are received in an unencrypted (=without encryption) form); cause an action by the system (Saroiu: [0056], the URLLC slice type may require strict resource allocation to guarantee reliability and low latency under a corresponding SLA. [0069], provides for a the trusted computing hardware may be deployed in various nodes of the 5G network including the RAN 420 and the datacenters 425, 430, and 435 supporting the mobile core and cloud networks, as shown, to provide secure end-to-end data communications over the network).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Krikorian’s method of receiving commands without encryption, in order to receive signals by trusted receiver. The motivation is to configure the information management system to avoid conflicts between the commands sent by the communications system to the satellite from different operators in the plurality of operators that cause an undesired operation of the satellite (Krikorian: [0014]).
transmit, to the peer system, one or more encrypted data messages (Kotla: [0001] The use of decentralized distributed systems is growing. These systems typically comprise weakly connected nodes and are mostly decentralized. Examples of decentralized distributed systems include online games, messaging applications, cooperative data sharing systems such as peer-to-peer file sharing systems, and weakly consistent replication systems. [0006],An encrypted message is received by the receiving computing device from the sending (=transmitted) computing device) that have a first latency that is higher than a second latency of the one or more unencrypted control commands (Joubert: [0092], the unencrypted command messages remain useful when modifying non-critical data on the OTP security application. Advantageously, unencrypted command messages have a lower processing overhead than encrypted command messages);
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Joubert of lower processing overhead for the unencrypted message. The motivation is managing a one-time password security software application to gain access to secure networks (Joubert: [0006]).
and execute the one or more control commands (Saroiu: [0131], A user may enter commands and information into the computer system 2600 through input devices such as a keyboard 2666 and pointing device 2668 such as a mouse. Other input devices (not shown) may include a microphone, joystick, game pad, satellite dish, scanner, trackball, touchpad, touchscreen, touch-sensitive device, voice-command module or device, user motion or user gesture capture device, or the like) based on the one or more access control policies (Saroiu [0041], provide for A 5G network slice may be dynamically created consisting of an end-to-end composition of all the varied network resources and infra structure needed to satisfy the specific performance and requirements of a particular service class or application that may meet some pre-defined service level agreement (SLA)) and further based on a state of the system thereby causing the action by the system (Saroiu: [0056], the URLLC slice type may require strict resource allocation to guarantee reliability and low latency under a corresponding SLA. [0069], provides for a the trusted computing hardware may be deployed in various nodes of the 5G network including the RAN 420 and the datacenters 425, 430, and 435 supporting the mobile core and cloud networks, as shown, to provide secure end-to-end data communications over the network).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kotani’s method of exchanging keys to establishing hardware-trust by applying Saroiu’s method of determining access control policies and apply commands, in order to set up level access to sensitive information based on user’s roles, policies or rules.
Regarding Claim 24, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The system of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above),
wherein the system comprises a drone, an autonomous vehicle, or an autonomous robot (Saroiu: [0047], provides for FIG. 2 shows user equipment (UE) 200 that may be representative of the wide variety of device types that may utilize 5G networking including, for example and not by way of limitation, smartphones and computing devices, drones, robots, process automation equipment, sensors, control devices, vehicles, transportation equipment, tactile inter action equipment, virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR) devices, industrial machines, and the like).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kotani’s method of exchanging keys to establishing hardware-trust by applying Saroiu’s method of determining access control policies and apply commands, in order to set up level access to sensitive information based on user’s roles, policies or rules.
Regarding Claim 25, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The system of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above),
wherein the one or more unencrypted control commands are associated with a first network slice (Saroiu: [0048], provides for The URLLC slice 215 may be configured for mobile critical-infrastructure low-latency usage scenarios including applications such as remote-control operations in medical and industrial environments, VR and AR, robotics and automation, etc.) and the one or more data encrypted messages are associated with a second network slice (Saroiu: [0048], provides for the configuration of eMBB slice 210 may be optimized for broadband-everywhere usage scenarios across a wide coverage area for applications such as consumer entertainment (e.g., video, gaming, streaming), remote offices, etc., where maximized network speeds and data rates are desired and high traffic volumes are typically experienced).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu and Krikorian by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Saroiu of using 5G network including URLLC and MMTC system for communication order to get higher performance and improved efficiency power for communication.
Regarding Claim 26, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The system of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above),
wherein the first network slice comprises an ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC) slice service type (Saroiu: [0048], provides for The URLLC slice 215 may be configured for mobile critical-infrastructure low-latency usage scenarios including applications such as remote-control operations in medical and industrial environments, VR and AR, robotics and automation, etc.), and the second network slice comprises an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) or a massive internet of things (MIoT) slice service type (Saroiu: [0049], provide for The MioT slice 220 may be configured for optimal handling of Io T, control, and sensor applications relating to logistics, construction, and metering in vertical industries such as construction and agriculture).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu and Krikorian by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Saroiu of using 5G network including URLLC and MMTC system for communication order to get higher performance and improved efficiency power for communication.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2010/0023755 A1) (hereinafter “Kotani”) in view of Saroiu et al (US 2022/0407890 A1) (hereinafter “Saroiu”); Krikorian et al (US 2013/0077561 A1), of Kotla et al (U. S. PGPub. No. 2012/0198235 A1) (hereinafter “Kotla”) and Joubert (U. S. PGPub. No. 2010/0313019 A1) (hereinafter “Joubert”); and further in view of Marquardt et al (US 2021/0195421 A1).
Regarding claim 2, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert, teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
The combination of Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert does not disclose:
wherein the system is further caused to: post one or more events associated with the trust relationship between the system and the peer system to a distributed ledger.
However, in an analogous art, Marquardt teaches:
wherein the system is further caused to: post one or more events associated with the trust relationship between the system and the peer system to a distributed ledger (Marquardt: [0023], When hardware-trust is established, hardware-trust server 140 generates and transfers (=post or store) hardware-trust digital certificates to distributed ledger client 120)).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Marquardt of recording event associated with trust establishments into a distributed ledger in order to offer high level of transparency between all participants.
Regarding claim 3, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The cited combination of Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert does not disclose:
wherein the trust relationship is based on one or more records stored in a distributed ledger.
However, Marquardt teaches:
wherein the trust relationship is based on one or more records stored in a distributed ledger (Marquardt : [0023], provides for When hardware-trust is established, hardware-trust server 140 generates and transfers hardware-trust digital certificates to distributed ledger client 120).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Marquardt of recording event associated with trust establishments into a distributed ledger in order to offer high level of transparency between all participants.
Regarding Claim 22, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The system of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above),
The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert does not explicitly disclose:
post one or more events associated with the hardware-based trust relationship between the system and the peer system to a distributed ledger.
However, in an analogous art, Marquardt disclose:
post one or more events associated with the hardware-based trust relationship between the system and the peer system to a distributed ledger (Marquardt: [0023], When hardware-trust is established, hardware-trust server 140 generates and transfers (=post or store) hardware-trust digital certificates to distributed ledger client 120)).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Marquardt of recording event associated with trust establishments into a distributed ledger in order to offer high level of transparency between all participants.
Regarding Claim 23, The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert teaches:
The system of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above),
The Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware-based trust relationship is based on one or more records stored in a distributed ledger .
However, in an analogous art, Marquardt disclose:
wherein the hardware-based trust relationship is based on one or more records stored in a distributed ledger (Marquardt: [0023], When hardware-trust is established, hardware-trust server 140 generates and transfers (=post or store) hardware-trust digital certificates to distributed ledger client 120)).
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Kotani in view of Saroiu, Krikorian and Kotla and Joubert by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Marquardt of recording event associated with trust establishments into a distributed ledger in order to offer high level of transparency between all participants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
GORDON et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2017/0278404 A1): A method, system, and/or computer program product controls operations of an aerial drone within a predetermined airspace. A drone controller device detects a presence of an aerial drone. The drone controller device and the aerial drone negotiate permission to fly within a predetermined airspace under a predefined aerial drone state. In response to successfully negotiating the permission, the drone controller device enables a drone on-board computer to operate the aerial drone within the predetermined airspace in accordance with the predefined aerial drone state.
Yang et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2020/0272144 A1): An unmanned aerial system includes a remote controller device and an unmanned aerial vehicle. A user input on the remote controller device indicates a flight command requested by a user. The remote controller device determines a current position and/or orientation of the remote controller device in response to the flight command from the user. The current position and/or orientation is sent to the vehicle. The vehicle responsively determines a desired orientation of the unmanned aerial vehicle as a function of the current position and/or orientation of the remote controller device and operates a lift mechanism to execute a flight operation based on the desired orientation of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the current position of the remote controller device.
Eyhorn (U. S. PGPub. No. 2020/0242949 A1): Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for sending a flight plan for execution by a drone, where the flight plan is adapted to a flight controller of the drone. Receiving flight data from the drone while the drone is executing the flight plan. Determining a modification to the flight plan based on the flight data received from the drone. Sending the modification to the flight plan to the drone while the drone is executing the flight plan, such that the drone executes the flight plan as modified by the modification.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUPALI DHAKAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3743. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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.
/R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437