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 .
Claims 1-21 are presented for Examination.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims1-7, 9, 11-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
a) Regarding claims 1, 20 ,
i) The limitations of “compare the expected system configuration with the current system configuration”, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is performing the evaluation in the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper as a physical aid.
Hence the limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
ii)The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, “obtain information on an expected system configuration of the computer system from a protected storage of the computer system; determine information on a current system configuration of the computer system and provide information on a mismatch via an output device of the computer system if there is a mismatch between the expected system configuration and the current system configuration.”, which amounts to mere data gathering and displaying the mismatch is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
As explained by the Supreme court , the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well understood or conventional.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity that provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (protected storage , an output device). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
iii) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A protected storage , an output device are all generic components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
b) Regarding claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of : the expected system configuration and the information on the current system configuration comprising telemetry data; the expected system configuration is a factory-defined system configuration of the computer system is mere data gathering is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity that provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components :
wherein the expected and current system configuration relate to internal components , non-peripheral components of the computer system, the protected storage is a read-only storage of the computer system.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, Claim recites “if a hardware component has a different configuration between the expected configuration and the expected configuration “, the terminologies are unclear and the use of this phrase which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether the configuration is different between the primary copy of expected configuration and secondary copy of the expected configuration [ Page 7, lines 24-30, Page 21 lines 20-30] or between an expected configuration and current configuration.
Examiner interprets as configuration is different between the primary copy expected configuration and secondary copy of the expected configuration in light of the specification document [ Page 7, lines 24-30, Page 21 lines 20-30].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lambert et.al. (U.S Patent Application Publication 2020/0252280 hereinafter “Lambert”].
Regarding Claims 1, 20, Lambert discloses , an apparatus for a computer system, the apparatus comprising interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions and processing circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions to:
obtain information on an expected system configuration of the computer system from a protected storage of the computer system[“restore media 122 may include a Restore Serial Peripheral Interface (RSPI) configured to store particular information about information handling system 102, including a unique identifier (e.g., service tag number) of information handling system 102. As shown in FIG. 1, restore media 122 may have stored thereon backup versions of original configuration 109 and updated configuration 111.”, 0031; “ At step 208, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may store such original configuration 109 to storage resource 108 and restore media 122. At step 210,validation module 118 of management controller 112 may make an identical copy of original configuration 109 and store such copy as updated configuration 111 in storage resource 108 and restore media 122. After step 210, method 200 may end.”, 0036;( i.e restore media corresponds to protected storage); “The management controller may be further configured to, during boot of the information handling system read a known configuration for the information handling system from a storage resource accessible to the management controller, determine a current configuration of the information handling system, compare the known configuration to the current configuration, and in response to a mismatch between the known configuration and the current configuration, report an indication of the mismatch to a user of the information handling system and receive a desired user action for responding to the mismatch”, 0006; ( i.e known or updated configuration corresponds to the expected configuration)];
determine information on a current system configuration of the computer system [ “storage resource 108 may have stored thereon an original configuration 109 and an updated configuration 111”, 0024;” a “configuration” may comprise a collection of information defining an inventory of information handling resources of information handling system 102, including hardware resources, firmware resources, software resources, and/or connectivity of hardware resources to one another.”, 0032; 0041-0042; “ At step 306, responsive to validated configuration information being present within storage resource 108, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may read updated configuration 111 from storage resource 108”, 0043; “ At step 308, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may determine the then-current configuration of information handling system 102….”, 0044];
compare the expected system configuration with the current system configuration[“ validation module 118 of management controller 112 may determine the then-current configuration of information handling system 102. At step 310, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may compare the then-current configuration to updated configuration 111. If the then-current configuration matches updated configuration 111, then method 300 may proceed to step 318. Otherwise, method 300 may proceed to step 312.”, 0044];
provide information on a mismatch via an output device of the computer system if there is a mismatch between the expected system configuration and the current system configuration[ “ responsive to then-current configuration of information handling system 102 failing to match updated configuration 111, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may communicate an indication to a user of information handling system 102 (e.g., via a display device) that the then-current configuration differs from its last configuration. In some embodiments, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may also communicate the differences between the then-current configuration and updated configuration 111.”, 0045].
Regarding Claim 2, Lambert discloses, determine the information on the current system configuration after a power state transition of the computer system[ “ validation module 118 of management controller 112 may, during a boot of management controller 112, determine if validated configuration information is present within storage resource 108..”, 0041]
Regarding Claim 3, Lambert discloses , wherein the machine-readable instructions comprise instructions to determine the information on the current system configuration after the computer system transitions from a sleep state to an active state[ “..booted and/or powered on..”, 0023; “during a boot of management controller 112”, 0041;( i.e transitioning from a low power or inactive to active state ) ] .
Regarding Claim 4, Lambert discloses, determine the information on the current system configuration after or during a boot process of the computer system[0041].
Regarding Claim 5, Lambert discloses, determine the information on the current system configuration according to a pre-defined schedule[0023; 0040-0041; ( i.e. pre-defined firmware instructions to validate the configuration during or at the time of boot/ power-on condition)].
Regarding Claim 6, Lambert discloses, determine the information on the current system configuration when a power condition is met [ “ BIOS 105 may be implemented as a program of instructions that may be read by and executed on processor 103 to carry out the functionality of BIOS 105. In these and other embodiments, BIOS 105 may comprise boot firmware configured to be the first code executed by processor 103 when information handling system 102 is booted and/or powered on. As part of its initialization functionality, code for BIOS 105 may be configured to set components of information handling system 102 into a known state, so that one or more applications (e.g., an operating system or other application programs) stored on compatible media (e.g., disk drives) may be executed by processor 103 and given control of information handling system 102”, 0023; ( i.e determining the current system configuration when the system is powered on)].
Regarding Claim 7, Lambert discloses, determine the information on the current system configuration by querying at least one of a system firmware of the computer system, a hardware component of the computer system, an embedded controller of the computer system, a kernel of an operating system of the computer system and a driver of a hardware component of the computer system[ “configuration” may comprise a collection of information defining an inventory of information handling resources of information handling system 102, including hardware resources, firmware resources, software resources, and/or connectivity of hardware resources to one another.”, 0032; “ management controller 112 may determine the then-current configuration of information handling system 102. At step 310, validation module 118 of management controller 112 may compare the then-current configuration to updated configuration 111. “, 0044.
Regarding Claim 9, Lambert discloses, determine, based on a data storage with proposed mitigations, information on a proposed mitigation for mitigating the mismatch, and to include the information on the proposed mitigation with the information on the mismatch [ “validation module 118 of management controller 112 may receive from the user a desired action to take in response to the failure of the then-current configuration to match updated configuration 111. For instance, options provided to a user by validation module 118 of management controller 112 may include, without limitation: (a) an option to power off information handling system 102 in order for the user to address the mismatched configuration (in response to which, method 300 may end); (b) an option to ignore the mismatched configuration and continue boot of information handling system 102 (in response to which, method 300 may proceed to step 318); (c) an option to save the then-current configuration of information handling system 102 as a new updated configuration 111 (in which case method 300 may proceed to step 316); (d) an option to compare the then-current configuration to its closest validated configuration set forth in supported configurations 120 (in which case method 300 may proceed to step 322), and (e) an option to restore original configuration 109 (in which case method 300 may proceed to step 320)”, 0046; 0050].
Regarding Claim 11, Lambert discloses, wherein the expected and current system configuration relate to internal components of the computer system[ 0032;00441; 0044].
Regarding Claim 12, Lambert discloses, wherein the expected and current system configuration relate to non-peripheral components of the computer system [ 0032-0033; 0044-0045] .
Regarding Claim 13, Lambert discloses, wherein the information on the expected system configuration and the information on the current system configuration comprise telemetry data [ 0032-0033; 0036; 0044].
Regarding claim 14, Lambert discloses, wherein the expected system configuration is a factory-defined system configuration of the computer system[0025; 0030] .
Regarding Claim 15, Lambert discloses, wherein the protected storage is a read-only storage of the computer system[0031;0036; 0042]
Regarding Claim 16 , Lambert discloses , wherein the expected system configuration is a factory-defined system configuration of the computer system that is modifiable by an administrator of the computer system[0033;0039].
Regarding Claim 17, Lambert discloses, wherein the protected storage is a storage that is overwritable by an administrator of the computer system[0033;0039].
Regarding Claim 19, Lambert discloses, A computer system comprising an apparatus according to claim 1 [ 0006; 0032; 0041-0045].
Regarding Claim 21, Lambert discloses, A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including program code, when executed, to cause a machine to perform the method of claim 20[ 0006; 0032; 0041-0045].
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 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 of this title, 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 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Asakimori et.al. (U.S Patent Application Publication 2007/0283523; hereinafter “Asakimori” )
Regarding Claim 8, Lambert discloses, the information on the mismatch[0045] and the limitations as outlined in Claim 1.
However, Lambert does not expressly disclose wherein the information on the mismatch is provided in at least one of the following cases: if a hardware component is present in the expected configuration and missing in the current configuration, if a hardware component is missing in the expected configuration and present in the current configuration, and if a hardware component has a different configuration between the expected configuration and the expected configuration.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g. an image forming apparatus that has its security increased by preventing serious security vulnerability from being caused and preventing leakage of information due to vulnerability by detecting an illegal change in the module configuration of the image forming apparatus, and notifying a manager of the configuration change and preventing a person (or a user) other than the manager from using the apparatus) ,
Asakimori teaches, wherein the information on the mismatch is provided in at least one of the following cases: if a hardware component is present in the expected configuration and missing in the current configuration, if a hardware component is missing in the expected configuration and present in the current configuration, and if a hardware component has a different configuration between the expected configuration and the expected configuration[ The image forming apparatus 7 includes multiple application modules that perform processing such as scanning, printing, and copying images, and multiple service modules that perform processing such as image forming operations (for example, data processing including storing and transferring images) and controlling the image forming apparatus 7. The image forming apparatus 7 stores the configuration information (module configuration information) of all the application and service modules in a configuration information storage part 71 (FIG. 5) formed of a nonvolatile storage unit such as an NVRAM. Before starting the application modules and service modules, the configuration information of all the modules and the configuration information of all the modules contained in the configuration information storage part are compared in a configuration information comparison part 72”, 0042; “If the configuration change detection setting is valid (YES in step S2), in step S3, the INIT 42 reads (obtains) the module configuration information of a previous startup (previous module configuration information) from the NVRAM 55.. Then in step S5, the INIT 42 determines whether there is a difference between the previous module configuration information and the current previous module information..”, 0045-0046; “.. In step S5, the configuration information table shown in (a) of FIG. 3 and the configuration information table shown in (b) of FIG. 3 are compared. In this case, the system version numbers are different ..”, 0047; Fig.3;( i.e. Difference in module / component versions of the expected configuration stored in the NVRAM) ].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lambert with Asakimori. Asakimori teaching of authenticating the change in configuration to prevent illegal changes will substantially improve Lambert’s system to increase the security by preventing leakage of information due to vulnerability by detecting an illegal change in the module configuration of the image forming apparatus, and notifying a manager of the configuration change and preventing a person (or a user) other than the manager from using the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18, Lambert discloses detect a change in the system configuration of the computer system[0044-0045] .
However, Lambert does not expressly disclose authenticate an administrator of the computer system, overwrite based on the authentication of the administrator of the computer system.
Asakimori teaches, authenticate an administrator of the computer system, overwrite based on the authentication of the administrator of the computer system[ “In response to detection of a difference between the two configuration information items, only a module that is necessary for authenticating a manager is started while a module having the difference in configuration information is prevented from being started; then the manager is notified of the difference and requested to be authenticated, thereby preventing a person (or a user) other than the manager from using the image forming apparatus 7. In response to authorization of the change (difference) in configuration by the manager, the module configuration information stored in the configuration information comparison part 72 is updated, and the system is normally booted (started). An authentication request from a person (or a user) other than the manager is rejected, and it is requested that authentication be performed again. A computer program may cause a computer to execute this image formation control method”, 0043];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lambert with Asakimori. Asakimori teaching of authenticating the change in configuration to prevent illegal changes will substantially improve Lambert’s system to increase the security by preventing leakage of information due to vulnerability by detecting an illegal change in the module configuration of the image forming apparatus, and notifying a manager of the configuration change and preventing a person (or a user) other than the manager from using the apparatus.
1
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Lake-Schaal et.al. (U.S Patent Application Publication 2020/0384367; hereinafter “Lake-Schaal” )
Regarding claim 10, Lambert discloses information on the mismatch[0045] and the limitations as outlined in Claim 1.
However, Lambert does not expressly disclose determine, based on a data storage with known impacts, information on a likely impact , and to include the information on the likely impact .
In the same field of endeavor ( e.g. A game modification engine modifies configuration settings affecting game play and the user experience in computer games after initial publication of the game, based on device level and game play data associated with a user or cohort of users and on machine-learned relationships between input data and a use metric for the game), Lake-Schaal teaches ,
determine, based on a data storage with known impacts, information on a likely impact of the mismatch, and to include the information on the likely impact [ “Each processor 202, 214 of the server 200 may be operatively coupled to at least one memory 204 holding functional modules 206, 208, 210, 212 of an application or applications ..”, 0028; “a prediction module 208 for predicting an effect of changing one or more video game parameters on the defined metric, based on the complex association. The prediction module may use the same machine-learning algorithm as the MLP module 212 or a different machine learning algorithm. The predicting module uses a different process flow than the MLP module 212, because it predicts effects of data changes outside the scope of the MLP module's training set. For example, the prediction module 208 predicts effects of changing one or more video game parameters on some metric related to use of the game (e.g., an amount or duration of use by one or more players)…”, 0030; “ for example, a configuration module 206 for configuring the video game after initial publication thereof to improve the defined metric, based on the predicting. “To improve the defined metric” means to cause the metric to change in a desired way, e.g., to increase or decrease depending on whether the metric is desirable or undesirable”, 0031;” the method 500 may include at 510, receiving, by one or more processors, multi-parameter data including at least game play data and device-level data from a plurality of clients playing a video game. Examples of game play data and device level data are provided in connection with FIG. 3-4..”, 0047; 0050; “…the predicting operation may output data describing one or more configuration changes and a predicted effect for each change. A human administrator may review the output and select one or more changes for implementation. The selected changes may then be machine implemented in the operation 540…”, 0051; Fig.5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lambert with Lake-Schaal . Lake-Schaal’s teaching of modifying the configuration settings affecting game play and the user experience after initial publication of the game will substantially improve Lambert’s system to adaptively change the configuration settings to provide improvement in the defined configuration parameters by implementing machine-learning based predictions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goudarzi et al., U.S Patent Application Publication 2020/0150979, teaches network environment and service provider cloud infrastructure client instances (also referred to herein as client instances or instances), and, more particularly, collecting information associated with the instances and using the information associated with the instances.
Chalmers et al., U.S Patent Application Publication 2013/0047143, teaches, systems, methods, and computer program products to prevent unauthorized upgrades or patches to firmware and software of electronic systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAYATHRI SAMPATH whose telephone number is (571)272-5489. The examiner can normally be reached on Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached on 5712701640. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GAYATHRI SAMPATH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2176
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176