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 .
Detailed Action
1. The office action is in response to the communication filed on 5/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
2. The applicant’s arguments have been taken into consideration, but are not persuasive.
A. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed on pg. 1-3 of the remarks segment) that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Mostovych and Wu et al to arrive at the claimed invention:
Although Mostovych doesn’t disclose a door or explicit opening, the secure device disclosed by fig. 2 of Mostovych facilitates for prevention of tampering and unauthorized access to regions located on the secure device housing (as disclosed in par [0002], lines 10-20 of Mostovych) and incorporating the prevention of unauthorized access to protected regions of the physical secure device (disclosed by Mostovych) with the cabin door opening prevention, by way of implementing a self-destruction control switch, feature (disclosed by Wu et al) would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because incorporating this control switch with the physical tamper detector contained within the secured device (disclosed in fig. 2 of Mostovych) would accelerate the anti-tampering and unauthorized access considerations if the control switch of Wu et al was installed and connected to and in communication with the tamper detector taught by Mostovych would further ensure that unauthorized access or tampering of the secure device was eliminated by causing the tamper detector to provide the control switch with instructions to destroy the entire enclosure in each instance that unauthorized access and tampering has been attempted.
B. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed on pg. 2-4 of the remarks segment) that Wu et al fails to teach a secure enclosure comprising a door for permitting authorized access to an interior or a security controller for automatically controlling the initiator to trigger the destruction means in response to the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure through at least the door:
The examiner maintains that the cabin door implemented for preventing abnormal opening of the cabin door that is currently closed (e.g., a secure enclosure comprising a door) that employs a self-destruction control switch (e.g., a security controller for automatically controlling the initiator to trigger the destruction means) used to destroy internal embodiments located within the cabin door’s interior, upon determining that the cabin door has been opened in an abnormal fashion (e.g., identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure through at least the door) is obvious in light of the claimed limitation because the control switch (disclosed by Wu et al) is executed in the same fashion as the claimed “security controller for automatically controlling the initiator to trigger the destruction means in response to the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure through at least the door” by issuing self-destruction instructions to be executed once the abnormal opening condition has been detected by internal entities within the cabin door’s interior.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mostovych (US 2010/0064371) in view of Wu et al (CN 111653441 A).
Regarding claim 1, Mostovych teaches an offshore equipment destruction apparatus (fig. 6, ‘505 & par [0042], which discloses destroying physical regions in a secure microdevice) comprising:
a secure enclosure for housing equipment (par [0040], lines 1-5, which discloses protective housing in the secure microdevice for securing data);
an initiator for triggering a destruction means located within the enclosure to render at least part of the equipment unusable (par [0037], lines 34-44, which discloses a pulse power system for imitating the destruction of a physical information containing region).
Mostovych doesn’t explicitly teach the secure enclosure comprising a door for permitting authorized access to an interior and a body surrounding the interior within which the equipment is houseable; and a security controller for automatically controlling the initiator to trigger the destruction means in response to the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure through at least the door.
However, Wu et al teaches the secure enclosure comprising a door for permitting authorized access to an interior (pg. 2, lines 1-2, which discloses a cabin door of a mechanical device) and a body surrounding the interior within which the equipment is houseable (pg. 2, lines 1-15, pg. 5, lines 8-20, and pg. 6, lines 3-10, which disclose an external cabin cover to protect the internal content also secured using the cabin door); and
a security controller for automatically controlling the initiator to trigger the destruction means in response to the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure through at least the door (pg. 2, lines 33-36, which discloses a self-destruction control switch and circuit implemented to destroy the cabin door opening upon detected abnormal opening of the sealed cabin door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Wu et al within the concept illustrated by Mostovych in order to improve upon prevention of leaking of secure information stored within a secure unit by implementing automatic destruction of a physical unit storing the secure information upon determining an anomalous access attempt to open the door of the physical unit (as disclosed in pg. 2, lines 1-35 of Wu et al) because implementing a self-destruction circuit within the tampering prevention disclosure of Mostovych would guarantee tampering prevention when completing destroying an entire secure enclosure upon unauthorized access attempts to secure data being detected.
Regarding claim 2, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the destruction means is located within the housing for rendering at least part of the equipment unusable when triggered (par [0037], lines 34-44, which discloses physically destroying the information containing region).
Regarding claim 3, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the destruction means comprises thermite (par [0037], lines 65-75, which discloses one of the destruction features being drawn to using energetic material, including rapidly burning fuel and thermite).
Regarding claim 5, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the secure enclosure comprises a body surrounding the interior for resisting unauthorized access (par [0037], lines 5-7, “housing body”) and containing the effect of the destruction means when triggered (par [0037], lines 72-76, “causing the destruction of the information containing region”).
Regarding claim 6, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the secure enclosure comprises at least one port for connecting the equipment to the exterior (par [0027], lines 1-4, “interface with external control devices”).
Regarding claim 7, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the at least one port is for one or more of providing power to the equipment, connecting the equipment to exterior sensors, connecting the equipment to a communications interface (par [0027], lines 1-5, “interface with external control devices”), and providing a coolant medium for cooling the equipment.
Regarding claim 8, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches an uninterruptable power supply for powering the security controller (par [0029], lines 11-15, which discloses using an internal power source when external power isn’t available).
Regarding claim 9, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the security controller is configured to receive one or more breach indicators, each associated with a different security layer related to the equipment (par [0027], lines 24-28 & claim 5, “signals interpreted to be indicators of tampering”), and wherein the security controller triggers the initiator in response to receiving one or more of the breach indicators (par [0027], lines 18-20, “control signal for the controller to initiate the procedures of obliteration”).
Regarding claim 10, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the security controller is configured to automatically control the initiator to trigger the destruction means after a predetermined time delay after the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure (par [0028], which discloses the obliteration process beginning after the expiration of a preset time period).
Regarding claim 12, Mostovych teaches an offshore equipment destruction method comprising the steps of:
housing equipment in a secure enclosure (fig. 6, ‘505 & par [0042], which discloses destroying physical regions in a secure microdevice);
providing an initiator for triggering a destruction means located within the enclosure to render at least part of the equipment unusable (par [0037], lines 34-44, which discloses a pulse power system for imitating the destruction of a physical information containing region); and
identifying an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure (par [0027], lines 18-28, which discloses a tamper detector detecting unauthorized data extraction).
Mostovych doesn’t explicitly teach the secure enclosure comprising a door for permitting authorized access to an interior and a body surrounding the interior within which the equipment is housed; and controlling, using a security controller, the initiator to automatically trigger the destruction means in response to the identification of an unauthorized attempt through at least the door.
However, Wu et al teaches the secure enclosure comprising a door for permitting authorized access to an interior (pg. 2, lines 1-2, which discloses a cabin door of a mechanical device) and a body surrounding the interior within which the equipment is houseable (pg. 2, lines 1-15, pg. 5, lines 8-20, and pg. 6, lines 3-10, which disclose an external cabin cover to protect the internal content also secured using the cabin door); and
a security controller for automatically controlling the initiator to trigger the destruction means in response to the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure through at least the door (pg. 2, lines 33-36, which discloses a self-destruction control switch and circuit implemented to destroy the cabin door opening upon detected abnormal opening of the sealed cabin door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Wu et al within the concept illustrated by Mostovych in order to improve upon prevention of leaking of secure information stored within a secure unit by implementing automatic destruction of a physical unit storing the secure information upon determining an anomalous access attempt to open the door of the physical unit (as disclosed in pg. 2, lines 1-35 of Wu et al) because implementing a self-destruction circuit within the tampering prevention disclosure of Mostovych would guarantee tampering prevention when completing destroying an entire secure enclosure upon unauthorized access attempts to secure data being detected.
Regarding claim 13, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 12.
Mostovych further teaches receiving one or more breach indicators, each associated with a different security layer related to the equipment (par [0027], lines 24-28 & claim 5, “signals interpreted to be indicators of tampering”), and wherein the step of controlling the initiator comprises triggering in response to receiving one or more of the breach indicators (par [0027], lines 18-20, “control signal for the controller to initiate the procedures of obliteration”).
Regarding claim 14, Mostovych and Wu et al teach the limitations of claim 12.
Mostovych further teaches wherein the step of controlling the initiator comprises triggering the destruction means after a predetermined time delay after the identification of an unauthorized attempt to access the enclosure (par [0028], which discloses the obliteration process beginning after the expiration of a preset time period).
5. Claims 4, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mostovych (US 2010/0064371) in view of Wu et al (CN 111653441 A), further in view of Gral (US 6,701,854).
Regarding claim 4, Mostovych and Wu et al do not explicitly teach wherein the initiator comprises a pyrotechnic initiator for triggering the destruction means.
However, Gral further teaches wherein the initiator comprises a pyrotechnic initiator for triggering the destruction means (col. 2, lines 51-56, which discloses implementing a pyrotechnic charge using a device’s detonator in the event that the device has been tampered with).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gral within the teachings of Mostovych and Wu et al in order to improve tamper prevention by implementing a detonation cord to destroy contents in a device upon determining a device breach (as disclosed in col. 2, lines 50-60 of Gral) because this method would allow Mostovych and Wu et al to immediately prevent secure data within the device from being compromised upon any external edge of the device determined to have been opened in an unauthorized manner.
Regarding claim 11, Mostovych and Wu et al do not explicitly teach wherein the security controller is configured to abort the triggering of the destruction means in response to the receipt of a reset signal.
However, Gral further teaches wherein the security controller is configured to abort the triggering of the destruction means in response to the receipt of a reset signal (col. 1, lines 51-56, which discloses implementing a pyrotechnic charge using a device’s detonator in the event that the device has been tampered with).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gral within the concepts illustrated by Mostovych and Wu et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Mostovych and Wu et al do not explicitly teach aborting the triggering of the destruction means in response to the receipt of a reset signal.
However, Gral further teaches aborting the triggering of the destruction means in response to the receipt of a reset signal (col. 4, lines 20-25, which discloses preventing powering of pyrotechnic initiation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective day of the invention, that one would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gral within the concepts illustrated by Mostovych and Wu et al, according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 4.
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 Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
20260613
Prosecution Insights