DETAILED ACTION
Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-17 have been examined.
Responses to Applicant’s remarks have been given.
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 (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.
Priority
The current application claims priority from Provisional Application 63231519, filed 08/10/2021.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1 and 12 give cause for the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 12-17 to be hereby withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 17 and the cancellation of claim 18 give cause for the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection to be hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to “Einberg does not teach or suggest a system where access to a processing unit is provided to a user only in the presence of a trusted device where the trusted device is identified when a device ID of the trusted device is included in a list of trusted devices within the processing unit”, the Examiner upholds that Einberg discloses this aspect of the Applicant’s claimed invention via a “reader” and “authorized devices” are on a list and that “reader” and “authorized devices” and in communication with the user’s device, providing there is proper authorization. This is disclosed via paragraph 82, “communication between one or both of the primary credential device 408 and the secondary credential device 404 on the one hand and the reader 412 on the other begins when the user 402, using a user interface of one or both of the primary credential device 408 and the secondary credential device 404, commands the respective device to initiate communication with the reader 412”, and “the command may be in the form of selecting the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”.
An analogous argument was made for analogous claim limitations within independent claim 12; thus the Examiner’s response to the arguments for claim 1 also pertain to claim 12.
Further, with regards to the Applicant’s arguments that Einberg does not teach the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein the trusted device verifies the user identity through facial recognition, fingerprint identification, or password recognition”, the “or” within said claim limitations requires only one of the claimed forms of verification to be utilized. Thus, the Examiner upholds that Einberg’s disclosure of the providing of a password by a user discloses this aspect of the Applicant’s claimed invention; please refer to paragraph 84, “Such access criteria may be or include, for example, successful authentication with a recognized reader, input by the user of a proper password or other access information (e.g. biometric information, motion information, etc.), whether via a user interface of the device in question, one or more sensors of the device in question, or the like.”
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the claim limitations of claim 12 directed to “verifying a user identity of the user and that the user is an administrator of the processing unit, wherein verifying the user identity includes verifying with facial recognition, fingerprint data, or a password”, the “or” within said claim limitations requires only one of the claimed forms of verification to be utilized. Kanakarajan discloses these claim limitations via paragraph 34, “processing unit 106 may require that an administrator enter proper authentication credentials (e.g., a username and/or password) into network device 202”, and paragraph 46, “processing unit 106 may prompt (e.g., via a user interface of network device 202) an administrator of network device 202 to enter a password and/or username. Processing unit 106 may then compare the entered credentials with a predefined set of credentials (e.g., stored within a TPM chip in storage device 102). In the event that the entered credentials match the stored credentials, processing unit 106 may lift any restrictions imposed on the functionality of network device 202, enabling network device 202 to return to its original mode of operation.”, thus the Examiner maintains the grounds of rejection cited below.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments that “Zhang does not teach or suggest’ if the user is verified as an administrator of the processing unit…storing as device ID of the identified device as the trusted device with the processing unit along with an associated user for the identified device, wherein the device is thereafter a trusted device used to allow access to the processing unit when present,’ which is recited in claim 12”; the Examiner asserts that Zhang was not cited to disclose those claim limitations within claim 12. Zhang was cited to disclose the claim limitations within claims 13, 15, and 17. Thus, the Examiner maintains the grounds of rejection cited within Zhang, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20180103030 A1 to Einberg et al., hereinafter Einberg.
Regarding claim 1, Einberg teaches a method of securing a processing unit (Figure 5, paragraph 55, 56, 66, 67, 84, and 91, “The primary credential device 408 (or, more specifically, the processor 316 of the primary credential device 408) may generate the derived key after identifying the access attempt”), comprising:
receiving a request for access from a user through a user device (paragraphs 55, 87, and 94);
detecting a trusted device (paragraphs 65, 66, 67, “detected motion of a wearable device 104”, and paragraph 90, “a location sensor may detect that the primary credential device 408 is within a given distance of the known position of the reader 412”);
sending the trusted device a query (paragraph 67, “a particular motion of the wearable device 104 may indicate that the wearable device 104 is being worn by a user 102. In one embodiment, the detected motion of a wearable device 104 may be compared to the detected motion of an associated mobile device 108, or vice versa, to generate comparison results... Additionally, motion comparison results (or simply detected motion information) may be used by the wearable device 104, the mobile device 108, and/or the reader 112 to assist in making an ingress or egress determination for the mobile device 108 and/or the wearable device 104.”, and paragraph 90, “ when a user 402 approaches an access control reader 412 to gain access to a protected resource, a primary credential device 408 holding a master key (e.g. in a key vault 312) identifies an access attempt (step 608). The identification may be automatic, whether as a result of receiving a signal from the reader 412, receiving a sensor input that correlates with proximity to the reader 412 (e.g. a location sensor may detect that the primary credential device 408 is within a given distance of the known position of the reader 412, or a network interface may detect a Wi-Fi network known to be associated with the reader 412), or the like.”);
receiving, from the trusted device, verification of a user identity of the user (paragraph 66, “detect biometric characteristics associated with a user 102 wearing the wearable device 104”, paragraph 67, “a particular motion of the wearable device 104 may indicate that the wearable device 104 is being worn by a user 102. In one embodiment, the detected motion of a wearable device 104 may be compared to the detected motion of an associated mobile device 108, or vice versa, to generate comparison results. The mobile device 108 may be associated with the wearable device 104, or the mobile device 108 may be associated with a user 102 having the wearable device 104. In any event, the comparison results may indicate similarities between the motion of the wearable device 104 and a motion of the mobile device 108 over time. Similar motion comparison results between the wearable device 104 and the mobile device 108 may allow a continuous authentication for the user 102”, and paragraph 84, “successful authentication with a recognized reader, input by the user of a proper password or other access information (e.g. biometric information, motion information, etc.), whether via a user interface of the device in question, one or more sensors of the device in question, or the like”) and a device ID (paragraph 55, “the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 may be validated via one or more components of the access control system 100. Once the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 is authenticated, credential information associated with the wearable device 104 may be validated. During this process, the reading device 112 may generate signals facilitating execution of the results of interrogating the wearable device 104 (e.g., engages/disengages a locking mechanism, allows/disallows movement of a monitored article, temporarily disables itself, activates an alarm system, provides access to a computer system, provides access to a particular document, and the like)”, paragraph 56, “the reading device 112 may require credential information stored on the wearable device 104 to validate the wearable device 104”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”),
wherein the trusted device verifies the user identity through facial recognition, fingerprint identification, or password recognition (paragraph 84, “Such access criteria may be or include, for example, successful authentication with a recognized reader, input by the user of a proper password or other access information (e.g. biometric information, motion information, etc.), whether via a user interface of the device in question, one or more sensors of the device in question, or the like.”);
determining whether the trusted device is a listed trusted device by comparing the device ID with a list of trusted device IDs (paragraph 82, “the command may be in the form of selecting the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”);
verifying that the user is associated with the trusted device (paragraph 66, “detect biometric characteristics associated with a user 102 wearing the wearable device 104”, paragraph 67, “a particular motion of the wearable device 104 may indicate that the wearable device 104 is being worn by a user 102. In one embodiment, the detected motion of a wearable device 104 may be compared to the detected motion of an associated mobile device 108, or vice versa, to generate comparison results. The mobile device 108 may be associated with the wearable device 104, or the mobile device 108 may be associated with a user 102 having the wearable device 104. In any event, the comparison results may indicate similarities between the motion of the wearable device 104 and a motion of the mobile device 108 over time. Similar motion comparison results between the wearable device 104 and the mobile device 108 may allow a continuous authentication for the user 102”);
providing the user access through the user device to the processing unit only if the trusted device is the listed trusted device and the user is associated with the listed trusted device (paragraph 55, “validate the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 to the reading device 112”, and paragraphs 67, 90, “the identification may be the result of a manual indication by the user 402 of the primary credential device 408, through the user interface 324 of the device 408, that the user 402 would like the primary credential device 408 to initiate the access process with the reader 412. For example, the user 402 may open an app on the primary credential device 408, select the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range, and press or otherwise activate a digital button that causes the primary credential device 408 to establish communications with the reader 412. Alternatively, the primary credential device 408 may detect the proximity of the reader 412 automatically, and present a question to the user 402 via the user interface 324 asking whether the user 402 would like the primary credential device 408 to establish communications (for the purposes of gaining access) with the reader 412”, and 91);
and denying access if the listed trusted device is no longer detected (paragraph 66, “the processor 208 of the wearable device 104 may receive the sensor information and determine whether the wearable device 104 is being worn by a user 102, whether the wearable device 104 has been removed from a user 102, whether any interruption to the wearing of the wearable device 104 is detected (e.g., whether the wearable device 104 has been continuously worn by, and/or removed from, a user 102, timing associated therewith, etc.)”, paragraph 67, “motion comparison results (or simply detected motion information) may be used by the wearable device 104, the mobile device 108, and/or the reader 112 to assist in making an ingress or egress determination for the mobile device 108 and/or the wearable device 104. Dissimilar motion comparison results between the wearable device 104 and the mobile device 108 may be used to disable or discontinue the continuous authentication for the user 102. In one embodiment, an extreme motion detected at one device (e.g., the wearable device 104 or the mobile device 108) but not the other device may cause continuous authentication to be broken, discontinued, and/or disallowed.”, paragraph 88, “if the user 402 loses or is otherwise separated from the secondary credential device 404 (containing the derived key), security is maintained because the derived key can only be used to gain access to the protected resource in conjunction with the master key, which is not stored on the secondary credential device 404. If extra security is desired, then the derived key (a copy of which has been stored separately from the secondary credential device 404) can be deactivated. This may be accomplished by removing the derived key from a list of authorized keys that is stored on or otherwise accessible to the readers 412 of the access control system in question, or it could be accomplished by adding the derived key to a “blacklist” of keys for which access is forbidden, which blacklist is stored on or otherwise accessible to the readers 412 of the access control system in question.”, and paragraph 96, “if the user 402 loses possession of the secondary credential device 404, security is maintained. If an unauthorized individual gains possession of the original secondary credential device 404, he or she will not have the master key or a derived key, and will be unable to gain access to the protected resource.”).
Regarding claim 3, Einberg teaches wherein the device is a Bluetooth device (paragraphs 50, 52, 62, and 78).
Regarding claim 4, Einberg teaches wherein the device is coupled to the processing unit by direct connection (paragraph 52, “communications between the wearable device 104 and the reading device 112 may be established automatically when the wearable device 104 enters an active zone of an interrogating reading device 11”, and paragraph 71, “pairing with one another or otherwise connecting to establish the communication channel”).
Regarding claim 5, Einberg teaches removing the device and denying access to the user in the absence of the device (paragraph 66, “the processor 208 of the wearable device 104 may receive the sensor information and determine whether the wearable device 104 is being worn by a user 102, whether the wearable device 104 has been removed from a user 102, whether any interruption to the wearing of the wearable device 104 is detected (e.g., whether the wearable device 104 has been continuously worn by, and/or removed from, a user 102, timing associated therewith, etc.).”, paragraph 67, “Dissimilar motion comparison results between the wearable device 104 and the mobile device 108 may be used to disable or discontinue the continuous authentication for the user 102. In one embodiment, an extreme motion detected at one device (e.g., the wearable device 104 or the mobile device 108) but not the other device may cause continuous authentication to be broken, discontinued, and/or disallowed.”, and paragraph 84, “the key vault 312 or 232 in which the mobile key is stored may be physically or logically disconnected from the processor 316 or 208 of the primary credential device 408 or secondary credential device 404, respectively, unless and until one or more access criteria are satisfied. Such access criteria may be or include, for example, successful authentication with a recognized reader, input by the user of a proper password or other access information (e.g. biometric information, motion information, etc.), whether via a user interface of the device in question, one or more sensors of the device in question, or the like. A physical or electronic switch may be activated once the one or more access criteria are satisfied, thus allowing the processor 316 or 208 to retrieve the respective mobile keys from the key vault 312 or 232 of the primary credential device 408 or secondary credential device 404.”).
Regarding claim 6, Einberg teaches wherein detecting a device includes querying devices (paragraph 45, “a request for at least one of the master key and the derived key”, paragraph 55, “the reading device 112 may be configured to request access control information from the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108”, paragraph 70, “the reader 112 may request a key or multiple keys from the mobile device 108”, paragraph 97, “The secondary credential device 704 may request the derived key from the key locker 740 in response to, or after engaging in, communications with an access control reader 712”, and paragraph 101, “The primary credential device 708 may request a master key from the key locker in response to detecting a nearby reader 712”);
and receiving IDs from devices to determine a trusted device (paragraph 55, “the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 may be validated via one or more components of the access control system 100. Once the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 is authenticated, credential information associated with the wearable device 104 may be validated. During this process, the reading device 112 may generate signals facilitating execution of the results of interrogating the wearable device 104 (e.g., engages/disengages a locking mechanism, allows/disallows movement of a monitored article, temporarily disables itself, activates an alarm system, provides access to a computer system, provides access to a particular document, and the like)”, and paragraph 56, “the reading device 112 may require credential information stored on the wearable device 104 to validate the wearable device 104”).
Regarding claim 7, Einberg teaches wherein determining whether the device is a trusted device by determining that a unique ID provided by the device is included in a recorded list of trusted devices (paragraph 82, “the command may be in the form of selecting the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”).
Regarding claim 8, Einberg teaches a method of operating a trusted device to secure a processing unit, comprising:
receiving a device query from the processing unit paragraph 45, “a request for at least one of the master key and the derived key”, paragraph 55, “the reading device 112 may be configured to request access control information from the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108”, paragraph 70, “the reader 112 may request a key or multiple keys from the mobile device 108”, paragraph 97, “The secondary credential device 704 may request the derived key from the key locker 740 in response to, or after engaging in, communications with an access control reader 712”, and paragraph 101, “The primary credential device 708 may request a master key from the key locker in response to detecting a nearby reader 712”);
verifying a user identity as associated with the trusted device (paragraph 66, “By way of example, the biometric sensor of the wearable sensors 220 may detect biometric characteristics associated with a user 102 wearing the wearable device 104 (e.g., a heart rate, a blood pressure, a body temperature, skin contact data, etc.). The biometric characteristics may be used to determine a state of the wearable device 104 (e.g., being worn or not, etc.) and/or determine an identity of a user 102 wearing the wearable device 104 (e.g., via comparing collected biometric characteristics to baseline characteristics stored in a memory and associated with the user 102, etc.).”, paragraph 67, “ the comparison results may indicate similarities between the motion of the wearable device 104 and a motion of the mobile device 108 over time. Similar motion comparison results between the wearable device 104 and the mobile device 108 may allow a continuous authentication for the user 102.”, and paragraph 84, “Such access criteria may be or include, for example, successful authentication with a recognized reader, input by the user of a proper password or other access information (e.g. biometric information, motion information, etc.), whether via a user interface of the device in question, one or more sensors of the device in question, or the like.”);
and if the user is verified, sending a device ID to the processing unit (paragraph 82, “the command may be in the form of selecting the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range”, paragraph 86, “if each user of the access control system is issued a unique master key, the reader 412 can verify that the secondary credential device 404 belongs to the owner of the primary credential device 408—or, at least, that the holder of the secondary credential device 404 has access to the master key and to the proper key derivation function. As an alternative to evaluating whether both keys are authorized, the reader 412 may evaluate only whether the master key is authorized, in addition to evaluating whether the derived key is in fact a derivative of the master key.”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”),
wherein the processing unit determines whether the device ID is listed in a trusted device list (paragraph 82, “the command may be in the form of selecting the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”).
Regarding claim 9, Einberg teaches wherein verifying the user identity includes biometric authentication of the user (paragraph 66, “detect biometric characteristics associated with a user 102 wearing the wearable device 104”, and paragraph 84, “successful authentication with a recognized reader, input by the user of a proper password or other access information (e.g. biometric information, motion information, etc.), whether via a user interface of the device in question, one or more sensors of the device in question, or the like”).
Regarding claim 10, Einberg teaches wherein the trusted device is a Bluetooth device (paragraphs 50, 52, 62, and 78).
Reading claim 11, Einberg teaches wherein the trusted device is directly connected to the processing unit (paragraph 52, “communications between the wearable device 104 and the reading device 112 may be established automatically when the wearable device 104 enters an active zone of an interrogating reading device 11”, and paragraph 71, “pairing with one another or otherwise connecting to establish the communication channel”).
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einberg and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20160357994 A1 to Kanakarajan et al., hereinafter Kanakarajan.
Regarding claim 12, Einberg teaches a method of registering a device to secure a processing unit in a trusted device list in the processing unit, comprising:
receiving a request to register the device from a user through a user device (paragraphs 65-67, 69, 70, 82, 84, 89, 90, and 96);
if the user is verified as an administrator (paragraph 89, “user (or a system administrator)”) of the processing unit, detecting one or more devices (paragraphs 65-67, and 90);
reporting the one or more devices to the user (paragraphs 82 and 103);
receiving an identified device of the one or more devices from the user (paragraphs 82 and 103);
and storing a storage device ID of the identified device as the trusted device with the processing unit along with an associated user for the identified device (paragraph 55, “the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 may be validated via one or more components of the access control system 100. Once the wearable device 104 and/or the mobile device 108 is authenticated, credential information associated with the wearable device 104 may be validated. During this process, the reading device 112 may generate signals facilitating execution of the results of interrogating the wearable device 104 (e.g., engages/disengages a locking mechanism, allows/disallows movement of a monitored article, temporarily disables itself, activates an alarm system, provides access to a computer system, provides access to a particular document, and the like)”, paragraph 56, “the reading device 112 may require credential information stored on the wearable device 104 to validate the wearable device 104”, paragraph 66, “detect biometric characteristics associated with a user 102 wearing the wearable device 104”, paragraph 67, “a particular motion of the wearable device 104 may indicate that the wearable device 104 is being worn by a user 102. In one embodiment, the detected motion of a wearable device 104 may be compared to the detected motion of an associated mobile device 108, or vice versa, to generate comparison results. The mobile device 108 may be associated with the wearable device 104, or the mobile device 108 may be associated with a user 102 having the wearable device 104. In any event, the comparison results may indicate similarities between the motion of the wearable device 104 and a motion of the mobile device 108 over time. Similar motion comparison results between the wearable device 104 and the mobile device 108 may allow a continuous authentication for the user 102”, paragraphs 90 and 91, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”),
wherein the device is thereafter a trusted device used to allow access to the processing unit when present (paragraph 82, “communication between one or both of the primary credential device 408 and the secondary credential device 404 on the one hand and the reader 412 on the other begins when the user 402, using a user interface of one or both of the primary credential device 408 and the secondary credential device 404, commands the respective device to initiate communication with the reader 412”, and “the command may be in the form of selecting the reader 412 from a list of readers within communication range”, and paragraph 103, “a list of authorized devices (in which authorized devices are identified by serial number or other identification information)”).
Einberg teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Einberg is not relied upon to teach the claim limitations pertaining to “verifying a user identity of the user and that the user is an administrator of the processing unit, wherein verifying the user identity includes verifying with facial recognition, fingerprint data, or a password”. Kanakarajan teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Further regarding claim 12, Kanakarajan teaches verifying a user identity of the user and that the user is an administrator of the processing unit, wherein verifying the user identity includes verifying with facial recognition, fingerprint data, or a password (paragraph 34, “processing unit 106 may require that an administrator enter proper authentication credentials (e.g., a username and/or password) into network device 202”, and paragraph 46, “processing unit 106 may prompt (e.g., via a user interface of network device 202) an administrator of network device 202 to enter a password and/or username. Processing unit 106 may then compare the entered credentials with a predefined set of credentials (e.g., stored within a TPM chip in storage device 102). In the event that the entered credentials match the stored credentials, processing unit 106 may lift any restrictions imposed on the functionality of network device 202, enabling network device 202 to return to its original mode of operation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kanakarajan with the teachings of Einberg so that “In the event that the entered credentials do not match the stored credentials, processing unit 106 may continue to impose the restricted mode of operation” (Kanakarajan – paragraph 46).
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements/steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. It is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einberg and Kanakarajan as applied to independent claim 12 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 20200213287 A1 to Zhang et al., hereinafter Zhang.
Einberg teaches the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Einberg is not relied upon to teach the claim limitation with respect to “if the device is detected on the trusted device list, determining that the user associated with the device is an administrator”. Kanakarajan teaches said claim limitation, as cited below.
Regarding claim 13, Kanakarajan teaches if the device is detected on the trusted device list, determining that the user associated with the device is an administrator (paragraph 34, “processing unit 106 may require that an administrator enter proper authentication credentials (e.g., a username and/or password) into network device 202”, and paragraph 46, “processing unit 106 may prompt (e.g., via a user interface of network device 202) an administrator of network device 202 to enter a password and/or username. Processing unit 106 may then compare the entered credentials with a predefined set of credentials (e.g., stored within a TPM chip in storage device 102). In the event that the entered credentials match the stored credentials, processing unit 106 may lift any restrictions imposed on the functionality of network device 202, enabling network device 202 to return to its original mode of operation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kanakarajan with the teachings of Einberg so that “In the event that the entered credentials do not match the stored credentials, processing unit 106 may continue to impose the restricted mode of operation” (Kanakarajan – paragraph 46).
Einberg and Kanakarajan teach the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Einberg and Kanakarajan are not relied upon to teach the claim limitations pertaining to “wherein verifying the user as an administrator includes detecting a device associated with the user; receiving, from the device associated with the user, a device ID and verification of the user identification; determining from the device ID that the device associated with the user is on the trusted device list;”. Zhang teaches said claim limitations, as cited below.
Further regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches wherein verifying the user as an administrator includes detecting a device associated with the user; receiving, from the device associated with the user, a device ID and verification of the user identification; determining from the device id that the device associated with the user is on the trusted device list (paragraph 11, “a list of ECUs”, paragraph 47, “the administrator or owner of the vehicle can generate a one-time-use-only password for a service person to open the hood or the secure compartment via the control panel, or the administrator or owner can open the hood or the secure compartment remotely via a network connection”, and paragraphs 79 and 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Einberg and Kanakarajan in order to “protect critical components, such as some ECUs and the ADC of the vehicle, against unauthorized physical access” (Zhang – paragraph 47).
In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements/steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. It is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding claim 14, Einberg teaches wherein the processing unit is included in a system (paragraphs 11 and 13, “an access control system is a system comprising a reader configured to access a protected resource at a given access point…”, and paragraphs 18, 47, 50, and 55).
Einberg and Kanakarajan teach the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Einberg and Kanakarajan are not relied upon to teach the claim limitation pertaining to “wherein the system is an autonomous vehicle”. Zhang teaches said claim limitation, as cited below.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches wherein the system is an autonomous vehicle (Figure 1, paragraph 11, “the vehicle may include an autonomous vehicle, and the key distribution center may be in an autonomous driving controller of the vehicle”, paragraphs 17, 32, 33, and 35, “a key distribution center (KDC) may be implemented in a vehicle, such as in an autonomous driving controller (ADC) of the vehicle, which may be a specialized ECU for autonomous driving in an autonomous vehicle”, paragraphs 38, 45-47, 53, 54, and 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Einberg and Kanakarajan to provide “multiple secure measures to authenticate the hardware and software components and data in a vehicle and enforce secure communication between ECUs, thereby improving the safety and security of both the autonomous vehicle and the passenger…thereby reducing the complexity and the cost of the trusted platform without sacrificing the security of the autonomous vehicle” (Zhang – paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 16, Einberg teaches wherein the system is a utility (paragraphs 58 and 65, “switches”, and paragraph 109, “a switch such as a PBX and media server”).
[Paragraph 20 of the Applicant’s Specification provides examples of utilities, which includes “networking switches”. Thus, the switches disclosed within Einberg provide disclosure of the claimed “utility”.]
Einberg and Kanakarajan teach the claimed invention, as cited above. However, Einberg and Kanakarajan are not relied upon to teach the claim limitation with regards to “wherein the trusted device is included in the user device”. Zhang teaches said claim limitation, as cited below.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches wherein the user device includes the trusted device (paragraph 34, “To protect these components, such as ECUs, many of these components can by physically housed within a vehicle compartment that is mechanically (e.g., using a mechanical lock) or electronically (e.g., using an electronic lock” secured, such that unauthorized access to the ECUs may be reduced or minimized”, and paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Einberg and Kanakarajan so that “many of these components can by physically housed within a vehicle compartment that is mechanically (e.g., using a mechanical lock) or electronically (e.g., using an electronic lock” secured, such that unauthorized access to the ECUs may be reduced or minimized” (Zhang – paragraph 34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on form PTO-892 are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to security for a device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEREMIAH L AVERY whose telephone number is (571)272-8627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/JEREMIAH L AVERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431