DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s remarks filed on December 30, 2025 in application 18/229,503.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 6-7, 12-13 are amended.
35 USC 112 rejections for claims 1, 7 and 13 are withdrawn based on amendments.
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 December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that nowhere within Cook, Davis or Grobelny teach a low power wireless module coupled to the chassis intrusion switch circuitry uses to communicate with the intrusion system to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event.
Examiner disagreed. Cook teach the integrated module 1000 may be formed as a single integrated circuit with the plurality of sensor types, the input/output interface 1100, the processor 1200, and the memory 1300 all embedded together onto the single integrated circuit (para. 60-61), the Bluetooth module may be configured as a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device (para. 66). The processor determined that a tamper event has occurred by the retrieved data from the plurality of sensor types (para. 65). The processor may send command or request to the host devices via one or more of the USB interface, the Bluetooth module, and the output feedback module (para. 66).
For the purpose of examination, further clarification of how the intrusion event is distinct is advised.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2020/0027026) in further view of Davis et al. (US 6,388,574) in further view of Grobelny et al. (US 2021/0225159).
In regard to claim 1, Cook et al. teach a computer-implementable method for performing a chassis intrusion operation, comprising:
providing an information handling system with a chassis intrusion detection component, the chassis intrusion detection component being coupled to a chassis of the information handling system (integrated module for performing tamper detection, fig. 1E, para. 59, the processor 1200 may execute an interrupt sequence when the tamper detection event is present and may send a command or request to the host devices system via one or more of the USB interface, the Bluetooth module, and output feedback module, para. 66)( It is noted that since the specification is unclear on how the coupled is performed, examiner assumed the coupling to mean within a memory of the information handling system or a website/software per se with communication via Bluetooth);
monitoring the information handling system for occurrence of an intrusion event (monitoring system reports in real time any suspected tamper, para. 74, 148), the monitoring being performed by the chassis intrusion detection component (integrated module for performing tamper detection, fig. 1E, para. 59, the processor 1200 has determined that a tamper event has occurred, para. 65);
providing information regarding the intrusion event from the chassis intrusion detection component to a chassis intrusion system, the chassis intrusion system identifying a remediation action to perform in response to the intrusion event (proceed to temper event logging step where occurrence of the tamper event is present, para. 73); and
performing the remediation action on the information handling system, the remediation action remediating the intrusion event (initiate a pre-specified procedure to disable the item of interest, para. 74); and
wherein the information handling system comprises a low power wireless module (the integrated module 1000 may be formed as a single integrated circuit with the plurality of sensor types, the input/output interface 1100, the processor 1200, and the memory 1300 all embedded together onto the single integrated circuit, para. 60-61, the Bluetooth module may be configured as a Bluetooth Low Energy device, para. 66); the low power wireless module is coupled to the chassis intrusion switch circuitry (connectors to interface to various accessories such as switches to detect service door opening, para. 147, fig. 6C); and the information handling system uses the low power wireless module (Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device, para. 66) to communicate with the chassis intrusion system to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event (the command or request may include an alert to a relevant user of the item of interest or provide live tracking of the item of interest, para. 66).
Cook et al. does not explicitly teach but Davis et al. teach the monitoring being performed whether the information handling system is in a powered on state or a powered off state (a direct current (DC) battery 40 is coupled to the optical intrusion detection system so that it operates at all times, col. 2 lines 10-31 and 43-67).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Cook et al. by adding Davis et al. chassis intrusion with power on or off. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would allow the intrusion detection system to operate at all times (col. 2 lines 10-31 and 43-67).
Cook et al. and Davis et al. does not explicitly teach the chassis intrusion detection component including chassis intrusion switch circuitry, the chassis intrusion switch circuitry including a chassis intrusion switch, the switch being coupled to a battery via a resistor.
Grobelny et al. teach of an inline chassis intrusion ON-OFF switch position within the chassis of the battery-powered information handling system (para. 9, 44, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Cook et al. and Davis et al. by adding Grobelny et al. detecting chassis intrusion and/or tampering events. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would allow an indication of OFF on the chassis intrusion switch when tampering event is detected (para. 44).
In regard to claim 3, Cook et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the remediation action comprises one or more of displaying a warning message on a display device of the information handling system and generating a warning sound via the information handling system (the score evaluation may be transmitted to a user interface (UI), by which the user is made aware of the alert message (audio and visual alert), para. 83).
In regard to claim 4, Cook et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the remediation action comprises one or more of performing a data wipe operation on the information handling system and performing a hardware component disablement operation on the information handling system, the one or more of the performing the data wipe operation and performing a hardware component disablement operation rending the information handling system unusable before an intruder can perform a nefarious action on the information handling system (initiate pre-specified procedure to disable the item of interest, initiate a wipe procedure to delete information that may be stored on the item of interest, para. 74).
In regard to claim 5, Cook et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the information handling system is contained within a geo-fenced information technology (IT) environment; the monitoring determines when the information handling system is removed from the geo-fenced IT environment; and identifying removal of the information handling system from the geo-fenced IT environment as the intrusion event; and performing the remediation action on the information handling system when removal of the information handling system from the geo-fenced IT environment is identified (tamper detection (perhaps including GPS detection that device has left an assigned geofence), para. 150).
In regard to claim 6, Cook et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein:
the low power wireless module comprises a Bluetooth module (Bluetooth module may be configured as a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device, para. 66); and
the information handling system uses the Bluetooth module to communicate with the chassis intrusion system via a Bluetooth mesh network to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event (send command or request to the host devices system via Bluetooth module, para. 66).
In regard to claim 7, Cook et al. teach an information handling system comprising:
a processor (processor, para. 37);
a data bus coupled to the processor (system bus, para. 50);
a chassis intrusion detection component, the chassis intrusion detection component being coupled to a chassis of the information handling system (integrated module for performing tamper detection, fig. 1E, para. 59, the processor 1200 may execute an interrupt sequence when the tamper detection event is present and may send a command or request to the host devices system via one or more of the USB interface, the Bluetooth module, and output feedback module, para. 66)( It is noted that since the specification is unclear on how the coupled is performed, examiner assumed the coupling to mean within a memory of the information handling system or a website/software per se with communication via Bluetooth); and
a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code (memories coupled to the system bus, para. 51), the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium being coupled to the data bus, the computer program code interacting with a plurality of computer operations and comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for:
monitoring the information handling system for occurrence of an intrusion event (monitoring system reports in real time any suspected tamper, para. 74, 148), the monitoring being performed by the chassis intrusion detection component (integrated module for performing tamper detection, fig. 1E, para. 59, the processor 1200 has determined that a tamper event has occurred, para. 65);
providing information regarding the intrusion event from the chassis intrusion detection component to a chassis intrusion system, the chassis intrusion system identifying a remediation action to perform in response to the intrusion event (proceed to temper event logging step where occurrence of the tamper event is present, para. 73); and
performing the action on the information handling system, the remediation action remediating the intrusion event (initiate a pre-specified procedure to disable the item of interest, para. 74); and
wherein the information handling system comprises a low power wireless module (the integrated module 1000 may be formed as a single integrated circuit with the plurality of sensor types, the input/output interface 1100, the processor 1200, and the memory 1300 all embedded together onto the single integrated circuit, para. 60-61, the Bluetooth module may be configured as a Bluetooth Low Energy device, para. 66); the low power wireless module is coupled to the chassis intrusion switch circuitry (connectors to interface to various accessories such as switches to detect service door opening, para. 147, fig. 6C); and the information handling system uses the low power wireless module (Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device, para. 66) to communicate with the chassis intrusion system to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event (the command or request may include an alert to a relevant user of the item of interest or provide live tracking of the item of interest, para. 66).
Cook et al. does not explicitly teach but Davis et al. teach the monitoring being performed whether the information handling system is in a powered on state or a powered off state (a direct current (DC) battery 40 is coupled to the optical intrusion detection system so that it operates at all times, col. 2 lines 10-31 and 43-67).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
Cook et al. and Davis et al. does not explicitly teach the chassis intrusion detection component including chassis intrusion switch circuitry, the chassis intrusion switch circuitry including a chassis intrusion switch, the switch being coupled to a battery via a resistor.
Grobelny et al. teach of an inline chassis intrusion ON-OFF switch position within the chassis of the battery-powered information handling system (para. 9, 44, fig. 1).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 9, Cook et al. teach the system of claim 7, wherein: the remediation action comprises one or more of displaying a warning message on a display device of the information handling system and generating a warning sound via the information handling system (the score evaluation may be transmitted to a user interface (UI), by which the user is made aware of the alert message (audio and visual alert), para. 83).
In regard to claim 10, Cook et al. teach the system of claim 7, wherein: the remediation action comprises one or more of performing a data wipe operation on the information handling system and performing a hardware component disablement operation on the information handling system, the one or more of the performing the data wipe operation and performing a hardware component disablement operation rending the information handling system unusable before an intruder can perform a nefarious action on the information handling system (initiate pre-specified procedure to disable the item of interest, initiate a wipe procedure to delete information that may be stored on the item of interest, para. 74).
In regard to claim 11, Cook et al. teach the system of claim 7, wherein: the information handling system is contained within a geo-fenced information technology (IT) environment; the monitoring determines when the information handling system is removed from the geo-fenced IT environment; and identifying removal of the information handling system from the geo-fenced IT environment as the intrusion event; and performing the remediation action on the information handling system when removal of the information handling system from the geo-fenced IT environment is identified (tamper detection (perhaps including GPS detection that device has left an assigned geofence), para. 150).
In regard to claim 12, Cook et al. teach the system of claim 7, wherein:
the low power wireless module comprises a Bluetooth module (Bluetooth module may be configured as a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device, para. 66); and
the information handling system communicates with the chassis intrusion system via a Bluetooth mesh network to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event (send command or request to the host devices system via Bluetooth module, para. 66).
In regard to claim 13, Cook et al. teach a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium embodying computer program code, the computer program code comprising computer executable instructions configured for:
monitoring an information handling system for occurrence of an intrusion event (monitoring system reports in real time any suspected tamper, para. 74, 148), the information handling system including a chassis intrusion detection component, the chassis intrusion detection component being coupled to a chassis of the information handling system (integrated module for performing tamper detection, fig. 1E, para. 59, the processor 1200 may execute an interrupt sequence when the tamper detection event is present and may send a command or request to the host devices system via one or more of the USB interface, the Bluetooth module, and output feedback module, para. 66) (It is noted that since the specification is unclear on how the coupled is performed, examiner assumed the coupling to mean within a memory of the information handling system or a website/software per se with communication via Bluetooth), the monitoring being performed by the chassis intrusion detection component (integrated module for performing tamper detection, fig. 1E, para. 59, the processor 1200 has determined that a tamper event has occurred, para. 65);
providing information regarding the intrusion event from the chassis intrusion detection component to a chassis intrusion system, the chassis intrusion system identifying a remediation action to perform in response to the intrusion event (proceed to temper event logging step where occurrence of the tamper event is present, para. 73); and
performing the action on the information handling system, the remediation action remediating the intrusion event (initiate a pre-specified procedure to disable the item of interest, para. 74); and
wherein the information handling system comprises a low power wireless module (the integrated module 1000 may be formed as a single integrated circuit with the plurality of sensor types, the input/output interface 1100, the processor 1200, and the memory 1300 all embedded together onto the single integrated circuit, para. 60-61, the Bluetooth module may be configured as a Bluetooth Low Energy device, para. 66); the low power wireless module is coupled to the chassis intrusion switch circuitry (connectors to interface to various accessories such as switches to detect service door opening, para. 147, fig. 6C); and the information handling system uses the low power wireless module (Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device, para. 66) to communicate with the chassis intrusion system to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event (the command or request may include an alert to a relevant user of the item of interest or provide live tracking of the item of interest, para. 66).
Cook et al. does not explicitly teach but Davis et al. teach the monitoring being performed whether the information handling system is in a powered on state or a powered off state (a direct current (DC) battery 40 is coupled to the optical intrusion detection system so that it operates at all times, col. 2 lines 10-31 and 43-67).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
Cook et al. and Davis et al. does not explicitly teach the chassis intrusion detection component including chassis intrusion switch circuitry, the chassis intrusion switch circuitry including a chassis intrusion switch, the switch being coupled to a battery via a resistor.
Grobelny et al. teach of an inline chassis intrusion ON-OFF switch position within the chassis of the battery-powered information handling system (para. 9, 44, fig. 1).
Refer to claim 1 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 15, Cook et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the remediation action comprises one or more of displaying a warning message on a display device of the information handling system and generating a warning sound via the information handling system (the score evaluation may be transmitted to a user interface (UI), by which the user is made aware of the alert message (audio and visual alert), para. 83).
In regard to claim 16, Cook et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the remediation action comprises one or more of performing a data wipe operation on the information handling system and performing a hardware component disablement operation on the information handling system, the one or more of the performing the data wipe operation and performing a hardware component 6 disablement operation rending the information handling system unusable before an intruder can perform a nefarious action on the information handling system; and performing the remediation action on the information handling system when removal of the information handling system from the geo-fenced IT environment is identified (tamper detection (perhaps including GPS detection that device has left an assigned geofence), para. 150).
In regard to claim 17, Cook et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the information handling system is contained within a geo-fenced information technology (IT) environment; the monitoring determines when the information handling system is removed from the geo-fenced IT environment; and identifying removal of the information handling system from the geo-fenced IT environment as the intrusion event (tamper detection (perhaps including GPS detection that device has left an assigned geofence), para. 150).
In regard to claim 18, Cook et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein:
the information handling system comprises a Bluetooth module; the Bluetooth module is couple to the chassis intrusion switch circuitry (Bluetooth module, para. 66); and
the information handling system communicates with the chassis intrusion system via a Bluetooth mesh network to provide the chassis intrusion system with the information regarding the intrusion event (send command or request to the host devices system via Bluetooth module, para. 66).
In regard to claim 19, Cook et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (tamper event may be saved to memory or other data storage at a remote location, para. 73).
In regard to claim 20, Cook et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (providing relevant users with an update that the item has been tampered with, moved, or that some environmental change has occurred, para. 29).
*******************************************
Claims 2, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook et al. (US 2020/0027026) in further view of Davis et al. (US 6,388,574) in further view of Grobelny et al. (US 2021/0225159) in further view of Chen et al. (US 2024/0306120).
In regard to claim 2, Cook et al., Davis et al. and Grobelny et al. does not explicitly teach but Chen et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein: the remediation action causes the information handling system to wake to perform the remediation action (background service operation can remain suspended and do nothing until initiated when detects a wireless beacon signal, para. 41, the computing device can be placed in a non-sleep mode to inform the user or the alert, para. 46).
It would have been obvious to modify the method of Cook et al., Davis et al. and Grobelny et al. by adding Chen et al. management of peripheral devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the modification because it would allow the device to be place in a non-sleep mode to inform the user or the alert can be transmitted (para. 46).
In regard to claim 8, Cook et al., Davis et al. and Grobelny et al. does not explicitly teach but Chen et al. teach the system of claim 7, wherein: the remediation action causes the information handling system to wake to perform the remediation action (background service operation can remain suspended and do nothing until initiated when detects a wireless beacon signal, para. 41, the computing device can be placed in a non-sleep mode to inform the user or the alert, para. 46).
Refer to claim 2 for motivational statement.
In regard to claim 14, Cook et al., Davis et al. and Grobelny et al. does not explicitly teach but Chen et al. teach the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the remediation action causes the information handling system to wake to perform the remediation action (background service operation can remain suspended and do nothing until initiated when detects a wireless beacon signal, para. 41, the computing device can be placed in a non-sleep mode to inform the user or the alert, para. 46).
Refer to claim 2 for motivational statement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Chiti et al. (US 12,385,289) chassis intrusion detection
Montero et al. (US 12,353,273) (Dell) detect intrusion event
Smith et al. (US 2024/0106839) chassis intrusion sensors connected to IoT network
*************
Kulkarni et al. (US 2022/0327249) intrusion detection and switch
Cencini et al. (US 11,665,230) network device sensing
*************
Kuo et al. (US 6,289,456) chassis intrusion detection, GPS or positioning information
Lindsay et al. (US 2003/0028633) remote alert management system
*************
Kunz et al. (US 2024/0073011) remotely quarantine or wipe a device based upon intrusion detection
Smith et al. (US 2019/0036957) geo-fenced and intrusion attack detection
Khatri et al. (US 2019/0012490) IHS and intrusion detection
Barillaud et al. (US 2016/0330626) detect intrusion of network of the geo-fenced volume
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 LOAN TRUONG whose telephone number is 408-918-7552. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM PST M-F.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/Loan L.T. Truong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Loan.truong@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights