DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 20 July 2026. By this response, Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-14, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 have been canceled. New claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 5-14, and 17-22 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, and with particular reference to Claim 7, Applicant argues that the use of “the component” clearly refers to the component introduced in Claim 6 (page 10 of the present response). However, the claims recite plural components (i.e. “device components of the first device” and “second device components of the second device” in Claim 1 as well as “a component of the first device” in Claim 6). As per MPEP § 2173.05(e), if a claim recites two different levers, the recitation of “said lever” is unclear because it is uncertain to which of the two levers was intended. Similarly, in the present claims, it is not unambiguously clear from the claim language to which of the plural components the term “the component” is intended to refer.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed.
Specification
Applicant’s statement that there is no summary section in the present specification (page 8 of the present response) is acknowledged. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to the claims reciting blocking traffic if a representation does not match a reference value, which is a positive recitation of an action as a result of the recited abstract comparisons which is considered to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (or in light of the cancellation of the claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-6, 8, 13-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn (or moot) in light of the amendments to (or cancellation of) the claims. The rejection of Claims 7, 9-12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 9-12, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “the component” in line 2. However, Claim 1 recited plural components and Claim 6 recites an additional component from those plural components, and it is not clear to which of the plural components this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 9 recites “the representation of device components” in lines 2-3. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the representation of device components of the first device or the second representation of second device components of the second device.
Claim 12 recites “the representation of the device components” in lines 3 and 4. It is not clear whether “the representation” is intended to refer to the representation of device components of the first device or the second representation of second device components of the second device, nor is it clear whether “the device components” is intended to refer to the device components of the first device or the second device components of the second device.
Claim 19 recites “the component” in line 2. However, Claim 13 recited plural components and Claim 18 recites an additional component from those plural components, and it is not clear to which of the plural components this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 21 recites “the representation of device components” in lines 1-2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the representation of device components of the first device or the second representation of second device components of the second device.
Claim 22 recites “the representation of device components” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the representation of device components of the first device or the second representation of second device components of the second device.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domke, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0373863, in view of Rodgers et al, US Patent 9906493 (cited in the previous Office action).
In reference to Claim 1, Domke discloses a network infrastructure device that includes a network interface and processing circuitry (Figure 2, processing circuit 210, network adapter 280) configured to receive a request to verify integrity of a device (paragraph 0040, request to remotely attest); obtain a representation of device components and compare the representation with a reference value in the infrastructure device (paragraph 0095, comparing calculated hash, corresponding to the obtained representation, with the stored hash, corresponding to the reference value); and transmit a response to the request indicating the integrity is intact if the representation and reference value match (see paragraph 0040, valid if attestation is completed successfully). Similarly, Domke further discloses that the processing circuitry is configured to receive a second request to verify integrity of a second device (paragraph 0040, request to remotely attest); obtain a second representation of second device components and compare the second representation with a second reference value in the infrastructure device (paragraph 0095, comparing calculated hash, corresponding to the obtained representation, with the stored hash, corresponding to the reference value). However, while Domke generally discloses a switch or gateway (paragraph 0019, switches, routers, other network elements) and that if validation fails, subsequent operation and traffic is blocked (paragraph 0100), Domke does not explicitly disclose that the networking infrastructure device operates as a switch or gateway or blocking traffic based on a failure to match the second representation with the second reference value.
Rodgers discloses a network infrastructure device that operates as a switch or gateway (see column 8, lines 39-60) that is configured to receive first and second requests to verify integrity of first and second devices (see Figure 4, step 406, and column 10, lines 27-53); obtain first and second representations of first and second device components and compare the first and second representations with respective first and second reference values in the infrastructure device (Figure 4, steps 408-412, and column 10, line 54-column 11, line 59); and block traffic to or from the second device based on a failure to match the second representation and the second reference value (Figure 6, step 606, and column 14, lines 45-57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Domke to include the switch or gateway functionality of Rodgers as well as the traffic blocking of Rodgers, in order to serve as a trust broker and establish a trust relationship (see Rodgers, column 2, line 63-column 3, line 14).
In reference to Claim 2, Domke and Rodgers further disclose a network processing unit in a node (Domke, paragraph 0019, switches, routers, other network elements; see also Rodgers, column 8, lines 39-60).
In reference to Claims 5-7, Domke and Rodgers further disclose a database of reference values where an entry corresponds with a device image that is a vector of values corresponding to components of the device that are verified, where the values are hashes of the components (see Domke, paragraphs 0097-0099, hashes of components; see also paragraph 0110, plural values verified, corresponding to the vector; see also Rodgers, column 9, line 53-column 10, line 19, hashes of components).
In reference to Claims 9-11, Domke and Rodgers further disclose receiving the representation of the components from secure hardware, i.e. a networked processing unit, in response to an event such as a boot event (Domke, paragraphs 0097-0099, hashes received in response to booting; see also Rodgers, Figure 4, step 400, power on, i.e. boot).
In reference to Claim 12, Domke and Rodgers further disclose that the request is a subscription from a second device and the comparison and transmission are based on obtaining the representation of the components (see Domke, paragraph 0095, comparing calculated hash in response to obtaining the calculated hash, where the request comes from a second device).
In reference to Claim 21, Domke and Rodgers further disclose that the representations include a secure identity, manufacturer key, or debug result hash (see Domke, paragraphs 0097-0099, hashes of components; see also Rodgers, column 9, line 53-column 10, line 19, hashes of components).
Claims 13, 14, 17-19, and 22 are directed to software implementations of operations corresponding to the functionality of the devices of Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 21, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domke in view of Rodgers as applied to Claims 5 and 17 above, and further in view of Fairfax et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0319807.
In reference to Claims 8 and 20, Domke and Rodgers disclose everything as detailed above with respect to Claims 5 and 17, respectively, and Domke and Rodgers further disclose remote attestation (see Domke, paragraphs 0040 and 0103, for example, and Rodgers, column 11, lines 4-8, for example). However, neither Domke nor Rodgers explicitly discloses updating a new entry to enable verification of integrity while a connection to an attestation server is unavailable. Fairfax discloses a device having processor circuitry configured to receive and update an entry from a remote attestation server to enable verification of integrity while a connection is unavailable (see paragraph 0108, remote attestation from server; paragraph 0095, verification of integrity; paragraphs 0148-0166, offline authentication scenarios, i.e. verification when connection unavailable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Domke and Rodgers to include the offline authentication of Fairfax, in order to allow validation when connectivity to a server is not available (see Fairfax, paragraph 0149).
Conclusion
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 Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights