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 .
The response regarding the election of claims 1-16, filed on 2/27/206, is acknowledged and considered.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
4. The present application has relationship to:
PRO 62858586, filing date 6/7/2019 and CON 16895043, filing date 6/8/2020
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the claims on 12/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. US 11863589. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Both current application 18/390333 and US Patent 11863589 include similar features of a network for coupling devices and enabling the transmission of data between the devices that includes the first memory to store security configurations for a plurality of meters with the security configuration for the meter, and a second memory for storing the security configuration in a local database wherein the security server sends a notification to each meter when a security configuration has changes and the meter pulls the changed security configuration after receiving the notification. Thus, the elements of claims 1-16 of the current application 18/390333 contains all elements of claims 1-25 of US Patent 11863589. Claims 1-16 of the current application 18/390333 are anticipated by claims 1-25 of US Patent 11863589.
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis [US 20180373304] in view of Garrison [US 20110258296].
As per claim 1: Davis, et al. teaches a system comprising:
a network for coupling devices and enabling the transmission of data between the devices; [Davis: para 0118]
a plurality of meters connected to the network; and [Davis: para 0106, 0292]
at least one security server coupled to the network including a first memory, the first memory configured to store security configurations for a plurality of meters, [Davis: para 0107; a smart meter is configured as a ZigBee Smart Energy coordinator and Trust Centre responsible for generation of the network key and managing the access of nodes to its Smart Energy HAN. The power management device configured as a ZigBee Smart Energy node and embedded during manufacture with a link key and a Smart Energy security certificate. The link key and security certificate are preferably stored in non-volatile memory in power management device. As such, security configurations may broadly be in the form of secure or protected data associated to the meter, such as the key and security certificate. The security server may broadly be in the form of a power management device since this device is coupled to the network and holds the key and security certificate (i.e. security configurations)]
wherein each meter of the plurality of meters including, a communication device for coupling the meter to the network and receiving the security configuration for the meter, and [Davis: para 0111-0112; a smart meter may be configured with proximity beaconing or NFC capability allowing for the transfer of the identification code and any additional information to the Product App using wireless or near field communications where supported by the smartphone. In order to establish a secure communications link, power management device and a smart meter need to be placed into a secure pairing mode allowing for a multistep exchange of security keys and certificates. More examples on para 0116, 0119, 0125]
a second memory for storing the security configuration in a local database [Davis: para 0247], wherein the security server sends a notification [Davis: para 0117; a notification from a utility or communications hub manager for connection to a smart meter] **to each meter when a security configuration has changes and the meter pulls the changed security configuration after receiving the notification. [**rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below]
Davis suggest a device which may be a server that sends a notification to a smart meter [Davis: para 0117]. However, Davis did not clearly teach “sends a notification to each meter when a security configuration has changes and the meter pulls the changed security configuration after receiving the notification”.
Garrison teaches downloading (that is, updating) firmware in a utility meter with use of a system and method of relaying updates via a two-way communications network. Different meters may require different types of firmware updates. Also, a given meter may require different firmware images depending on which of a plurality of processors (e.g., register board, RF LAN microprocessor, Zigbee processor, or the like) are to be updated. As such, firmware downloads are preferably configured for distribution among all endpoints in a network to help communicate the updates to the desired meters. The meter can be configured to install the update or the meter acts as a host or repeater for relaying the updates to other meters for which the updates are targeted [Garrison: para 0028]. The update suggest the changes for the meters and the install or download may be where the meter pulls the changed security configuration after the communication was received. Further, Garrison discusses the upgrade server attempts point-to-point communications with individual devices to determine whether all of the fragments have been accurately received. After all segments (fragments) have been accurately received, the update server can activate the firmware within the device. Such advanced metering system may preferably comprise a plurality of end devices, at least some of which end devices comprise metrology devices, and may preferably comprise a network including a central facility comprising an update server and a collection engine. Such collection engine preferably may include an orchestration manager for distributing metrology device data communications functionality. Further, such network is preferably configured for bi-directional communications between the central facility and each of the plurality of end devices, and configured so as to notify selected of the plurality of such end devices of a pending firmware image download, broadcast such firmware image download as a series of individual fragments, establish communications between the central facility and such selected plurality of such end devices, and determine whether all of such individual fragments of such firmware image download have been accurately received [Garrison: para 0029-0030]. As such, Garrison obviously suggest “sends a notification to each meter when a security configuration has changes and the meter pulls the changed security configuration after receiving the notification”, where one would be motivated to be configured for bi-directional communications between the central facility and each of the plurality of end devices to provide the update to the desired meters [Garrison: para 0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Garrison with Davis to teach “sends a notification to each meter when a security configuration has changes and the meter pulls the changed security configuration after receiving the notification” for the reason
To provide bi-directional communications to provide the update to the desired meters [Garrison: para 0030].
Claim 2: Davis: para 0120-0123 [a human interface or device in a Zigbee PAN or HAN network could be used to initiate a pairing mode for the exchange of any security, trust, or networking credentials required for power management device to join a ZigBee network]; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the first memory further includes a mapping of each meter to security credentials of individual users.
Claim 3: Davis: para 0205 [a smart meter configured to communicate via a ZigBee Smart Energy cluster to author, broadcast or multicast a change in state data to a PAN or HAN, fields could be updated according to the data authored by the smart meter]; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the communication device of each meter is configured to pull the security configuration from the security server without the security server knowing the network address of the meter.
Claim 4: Davis: para 0103-0106, 0257 [various protocols for user access and notification]; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the notification is broadcast as a UDP (user datagram protocol) message to the plurality of meters.
Claim 5: Davis: para 0139, 0151 [MSISDN, Universal Subscriber Identity Module, ICCID suggest device profile with identification codes suggest non-security parameters]; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the security configuration for each meter includes a device profile for the meter, the device profile including security and non-security parameters.
Claim 7: Davis: para 0069, 0273; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the security configuration is a single list of user credentials applicable to each meter.
Claim 8: Davis: para 0179, 0273; discussing the system of claim 7, wherein the list identifies which specific meter of the plurality of meters a specific user has access to.
Claim 9: Davis: para 0252; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the security configuration includes a plurality of users arranged in at least one group, access permissions to the plurality of meters being based on the at least one group.
Claim 10: Davis: para 0213, 0243; discussing the system of claim 9, wherein the at least one groups is configured via Windows Active Directories and features of the meter are managed as Active Directory objects.
Claim 11: Davis: para 0057 [record data; perform a function, measurement or calculation; sequence events; time stamp; and/or exchange data, based on time and/or date]; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the communication device transmits a security event to the security server for storage in a log.
Claim 12: Davis: para 0015, 0028; discussing the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of meters includes at least one of a socket/S-base meter, a panel meter, a switchboard/draw-out meter and/or a A-base meter.
8. Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis [US 20180373304] in view of Malpani [US 20070011746].
As per claim 13: Davis, et al. teaches a system comprising:
a network for coupling devices and enabling the transmission of data between the devices; [Davis: para 0118]
a plurality of meters connected to the network; and [Davis: para 0106, 0292]
at least one security server coupled to the network including a first memory, the first memory configured to store security configurations for the plurality of meters, [Davis: para 0107; a smart meter is configured as a ZigBee Smart Energy coordinator and Trust Centre responsible for generation of the network key and managing the access of nodes to its Smart Energy HAN. The power management device configured as a ZigBee Smart Energy node and embedded during manufacture with a link key and a Smart Energy security certificate. The link key and security certificate are preferably stored in non-volatile memory in power management device. As such, security configurations may broadly be in the form of secure or protected data associated to the meter, such as the key and security certificate. The security server may broadly be in the form of a power management device since this device is coupled to the network and holds the key and security certificate (i.e. security configurations)]
wherein each meter of the plurality of meters including, a communication device for coupling the meter to the network and receiving the security configuration for the meter, and [Davis: para 0111-0112; a smart meter may be configured with proximity beaconing or NFC capability allowing for the transfer of the identification code and any additional information to the Product App using wireless or near field communications where supported by the smartphone. In order to establish a secure communications link, power management device and a smart meter need to be placed into a secure pairing mode allowing for a multistep exchange of security keys and certificates. More examples on para 0116, 0119, 0125]
a second memory for storing the security configuration in a local database [Davis: para 0247], **wherein the communication device transmits a security event to the security server for storage in a log and the security event is transmitted via a directory protocol. [**rejected under a secondary reference, discussion below] [Davis: para 0117; a notification from a utility or communications hub manager for connection to a smart meter]
Davis suggest a device which may be a server that sends a notification to a smart meter [Davis: para 0117]. However, Davis did not clearly teach “wherein the communication device transmits a security event to the security server for storage in a log and the security event is transmitted via a directory protocol”.
Malpani teaches computer systems may implement security policies to protect their information and service resources from unauthorized accesses. Such systems may audit, for example, directory and file accesses or server events and record such events in security logs. The logs may be reviewed to help flag security breaches. Users of such systems may configure the security audits to track certain events and may decide to forego tracking other events [Malpani: para 0002]. The present invention may apply to an environment with server computers and client computers deployed in a network environment, having remote or local storage [Malpani: para 0031]. As such, one would be motivated to implement security policies to protect their information and service resources from unauthorized accesses. Malpani obviously suggest “wherein the communication device transmits a security event to the security server for storage in a log and the security event is transmitted via a directory protocol”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Malpani with Davis to teach “wherein the communication device transmits a security event to the security server for storage in a log and the security event is transmitted via a directory protocol” for the reason to implement security policies to protect their information and service resources from unauthorized accesses [Malpani: para 0002].
Claim 14: Davis: para 0252, 0258; discussing the system of claim 13, wherein the log is fed into a security information and event management (SIEM) system for analysis, wherein the SIEM system generates an alert based on at least one of when a specified event is detected, a threshold of event occurrences has been exceeded and/or a combination of events has occurred.
Claim 15: Davis: para 0155, 0179 in view of Malpani: para 0002-0003 [suggesting “intrusion detection”, under the same pretext and motivation as in claim 1]; discussing the system of claim 13, wherein the log is fed into an intrusion detection system (IDS) for analysis, wherein the IDS system generates an alert based events indicative of an intrusion by an attacker.
Claim 16: Davis: para 0113; discussing the system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of meters includes at least one of a socket/S-base meter, a panel meter, a switchboard/draw-out meter and/or a A-base meter.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leynna Truvan whose telephone number is (571)272-3851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM, 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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
Leynna Truvan
Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/L.TT/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights