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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the applied references fail to teach or suggest obtaining an encrypted SPDM-based measurement of a license that specifies one or more features that a BMC controller is allowed to perform. In response, maintains that the references teach the amended subject matter with the explanation provided herein. The applied reference, Cisneros teaches encrypted license information that specifies features of a BMC controller in Para 30, 34, 46, and 47. The portions of the reference are cited in the rejection.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akilan et al. (US-11645616), and further in view of Cisneros et al. (US-20190095593), Zmijewski et al. (US-20220201007) and Donaldson (US-20090048691).
Referring to claims 1, 9, 10 and 16:
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10 and 16, Akilan teaches an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a Security Protocol and Data Model (SPDM)-enabled device conforming to a SPDM specification; a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the IHS to: obtain a SPDM-based measurement of a license associated with the SPDM-enabled device (Col 9, Line 18-27…. measurement of an inventory data (license) associated with the device); compare the measurement against a Reference Integrity Measurement (RIM) initially generated for the SPDM-enabled device (Col 9, Line 18-27…. comparison against a reference inventory data measurement for the device); and when the measurement and the RIM do not match, generate an alert message indicating that the license is invalid (Col 9, Line 29-35…. report indicating the discrepancy).
Akilan teaches the license file but fails to explicitly teach that the license specifies one or more features that the SPDM-enabled device is allowed to perform. License files that specify one or more features that a device is allowed to perform is well known in the art and taught by Donaldson in Para 18 (license that specifies functions/features to be performed by a device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the license of Akilan to specify features that the device is allowed to perform as taught by Donaldson for the purpose of controlling the functions that is to be performed by the device thereby ensuring that only authorized function/features are performed.
Akilan and Donaldson teach the device as a controller having a license that specifies functions to be performed by the device wherein the license is authentication/validates by reference measurements but fails to explicitly teach the license as an encrypted license and the device as a baseboard management controller (BMC). However, BMCs provisioned with encrypted licenses that specifies function to be performed by the BMCs are well known in the art and disclosed by Cisneros in Para 30, 34, 46, and 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Akilan and Donaldson and implement an encrypted license for a BMC as taught by Cisneros for the purpose of securing the information contained in the license and validating functions to be performed by the BMC.
Akilan fails to teach the device as an SPDM-enabled device. However, SPDM-enabled devices are well known in the art and described by Zmijewski in Para 17 (SPDM-enabled devices for attestation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akilan to be an SPDM-enabled device as taught by Zmijewski for the purpose of performing attestation or integrity measurement on the device using SPDM.
Referring to claims 2, 3, 11 and 17:
Regarding claims 2, 3, 11 and 17, the combination of Akilan, Cisneros, Zmijewski and Donaldson teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions are performed by the BMC configured in the HIS (See Akilan, Col 5, Line 30-48…. BMC).
Referring to claim 4:
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akilan, Cisneros, Zmijewski and Donaldson teaches the IHS of claim 3, wherein the BMC interface device comprises at least one of a Network Interface Card (NIC) or a Lights Out Management (LOM) device (See Akilan, Col 15, Line 8-15…. network interface).
Referring to claim 5:
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Akilan, Cisneros, Zmijewski and Donaldson teaches the IHS of claim 3, wherein the BMC interface device is configured to communicate with the BMC using a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) bus (See Akilan, Col 13, Line 46-52…... PCIe).
Referring to claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20:
Regarding claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20, the combination of Akilan, Cisneros, Zmijewski and Donaldson teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to obtain the encrypted SPDM-based measurement, compare the encrypted SPDM-based measurement, and generate an alert message when the encrypted SPDM-based measurement and the RIM do not match each time the IHS or the BMC configured in the IHS is re-booted (see the rejection in claim 1, wherein a discrepancy is generated when there is a mismatch).
Referring to claims 8 and 15:
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combination of Akilan, Cisneros, Zmijewski and Donaldson teaches the IHS of claim 1, wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the IHS to allocate at least one block of the SPDM-based measurement structure for the measurement (See Akilan, Col 7, Line 45-58…. integrity tool).
Referring to claims 12 and 18:
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the combination of Akilan, Cisneros, Zmijewski and Donaldson teaches the BMC license file attestation method of claim 10, further comprising performing the program instructions by a BMC interface device configured in the IHS, wherein the BMC interface device comprises at least one of a Network Interface Card (NIC) or a Lights Out Management (LOM) device, and wherein the BMC interface device is configured to communicate with the BMC using a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) bus (See the rejection in claims 4 and 5).
Conclusion
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 IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
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, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights