DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “242” has been used to designate both a request and a voucher message in Figure 2B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 410, 411, 413-420, and 438 (see Figure 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 400, 401, 403-410, and 428 (see paragraphs 0085-0096). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not include a brief summary of the invention as per 37 CFR 1.73. See also MPEP § 608.01(d). If a summary was intentionally omitted, Applicant is requested to make a statement on the record confirming this omission.
The specification includes minor grammatical and other errors. For example, in paragraph 0029, line 1, “Overtime” should read “Over time,”. In paragraph 0045, line 3, reference is made to Figure 1A, but there is no such figure. In paragraph 0050, lines 3-4, the phrase “a system management by deployment management system and owned by an owner” is grammatically unclear and appears to be missing critical language. In paragraph 0056, line 4, in the phrase “a certificate chains and signatures”, the singular “a” does not agree with the plural “chains” and “signatures”. In paragraph 0068, line 1, in the phrase “may request and obtained”, the verbs request and obtained are not in parallel structure. In paragraph 0077, line 8, it appears that “recovery model” may be intended to read “recovery mode”. In paragraph 0081, line 2, the phrase “may be sided” is grammatically unclear and not in clear idiomatic English.
Appropriate correction is required. The above is not intended to be an exhaustive list of errors in the specification. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms Windows, MacOS, iOS, Android, Linux, Unix, WiFi, Bluetooth, and WiMax, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “identifying, by a management system tasked with managing a deployment owned by an owner, that a replaced component of an endpoint device of the endpoint devices that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating the owner as having authority over the endpoint device and which is a member of the deployment” in lines 2-5. It is not clear what is actually identified in this step. This is grammatically unclear and not in clear idiomatic English; the phrase “identifying… that a replaced component… that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating… and which is a member” appears to be missing critical language describing what is actually identified. Additionally, it is not clear what is deployed in the recited “deployment”. Further, the recitations of “the endpoint device” in lines 4 and 5, as well as in lines 8-9, 10, 12-13, 19, and 20. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices (see line 3) these limitations are intended to refer. Additionally, it is not grammatically clear what the phrases “that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating” and “and which is a member of the deployment” are intended to modify. Still further, because the rest of the claimed steps are “based on the identifying” in line 6, and it is not clear what is identified, it is not clear how the other steps would be based on the identifying. The claim further recites “new credentials” in line 10 and “a new ownership voucher” in line 12. It is not clear whether there were old or previous credentials or vouchers in comparison to which the established credentials or voucher are new. The claim additionally recites “the management system” in lines 16-17 and 18; however, it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the management system recited in line 2 or the voucher management system. The claim also recites “the owner of the endpoint device” in lines 19-20. Although the claim previously recited an owner, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “the replacement component” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claim further recites “a trusted platform module that stored a secret” in line 2. The claim also recites “the endpoint device” in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The timing of when the secret was stored is not clear. The claim additionally recites “the owners of the endpoint device” in line 3. Although the claims previously recited an owner, there is not clear antecedent basis for plural owners.
Claim 4 recites “the onboarding credential was usable” in line 1 and “the ownership voucher comprised” in line 2. The use of past tense makes the timing of these steps unclear. The claim further recites “the endpoint device” in lines 1-2 and 3. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “an ownership voucher” and “the ownership voucher” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to one of the vouchers in Claim 1 or a distinct voucher, and to which of the plural vouchers “the ownership voucher” is intended to refer.
Claim 5 recites “the trusted platform module stored a second secret”. The use of past tense makes unclear the timing of when the secret was stored. The claim further recites “the endpoint device” in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “the management system” in lines 2-3; however, it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the management system recited in Claim 1, line 2, or the voucher management system. Claim 5 further recites “the replacement component deprives the endpoint device of use of the second secure channel” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this is intended to be an active step of the method.
Claim 7 recites “with a signing using the unique manufacturer key” in line 2. It is not clear what is signed.
Claim 8 recites “the new credential” in line 1. However, Claim 1 recited plural new credentials, and it is not clear to which of the plural credentials this is intended to refer. Additionally, it is not clear what in Claim 8 is the new credential. Claim 8 further recites “the replacement component” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 9 recites “identifying, by a management system tasked with managing a deployment owned by an owner, that a replacement component of an endpoint device of the endpoint devices that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating the owner as having authority over the endpoint device and which is a member of the deployment” in lines 4-8. It is not clear what is actually identified in this step. This is grammatically unclear and not in clear idiomatic English; the phrase “identifying… that a replacement component… that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating… and which is a member” appears to be missing critical language describing what is actually identified. Additionally, it is not clear what is deployed in the recited “deployment”. Further, the recitations of “the endpoint device” in lines 6 and 7, as well as in lines 11-12, 13, 15-16, 22, and 23. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices (see lines 5-6) these limitations are intended to refer. Additionally, it is not grammatically clear what the phrases “that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating” and “and which is a member of the deployment” are intended to modify. Still further, because the rest of the claimed steps are “based on the identifying” in line 9, and it is not clear what is identified, it is not clear how the other steps would be based on the identifying. The claim further recites “new credentials” in line 13 and “a new ownership voucher” in line 15. It is not clear whether there were old or previous credentials or vouchers in comparison to which the established credentials or voucher are new. The claim additionally recites “the management system” in lines 19-20 and 21; however, it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the management system recited in line 4 or the voucher management system. The claim also recites “the owner of the endpoint device” in lines 22-23. Although the claim previously recited an owner, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “a trusted platform module that stored a secret” in line 2. The claim also recites “the endpoint device” in line 3. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The timing of when the secret was stored is not clear. The claim additionally recites “the owners of the endpoint device” in line 3. Although the claims previously recited an owner, there is not clear antecedent basis for plural owners.
Claim 12 recites “the onboarding credential was usable” in line 1 and “the ownership voucher comprised” in lines 2-3. The use of past tense makes the timing of these steps unclear. The claim further recites “the endpoint device” in lines 2 and 3-4. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “an ownership voucher” and “the ownership voucher” in lines 2-3. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to one of the vouchers in Claim 9 or a distinct voucher, and to which of the plural vouchers “the ownership voucher” is intended to refer.
Claim 13 recites “the trusted platform module stored a second secret” in lines 1-2. The use of past tense makes unclear the timing of when the secret was stored. The claim further recites “the endpoint device” in lines 3 and 4. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “the management system” in line 3; however, it is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the management system recited in Claim 9, line 4, or the voucher management system. Claim 13 further recites “the replacement component deprives the endpoint device of use of the second secure channel” in lines 3-4. It is not clear whether this is intended to be an active step of the method.
Claim 15 recites “with a signing using the unique manufacturer key” in line 2. It is not clear what is signed.
Claim 16 recites “the new credential” in lines 1-2. However, Claim 9 recited plural new credentials, and it is not clear to which of the plural credentials this is intended to refer. Additionally, it is not clear what in Claim 16 is the new credential.
Claim 17 recites “identifying that a replacement component of an endpoint device of the endpoint devices that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating the owner as having authority over the endpoint device and which is a member of the deployment” in lines 7-10. It is not clear what is actually identified in this step. This is grammatically unclear and not in clear idiomatic English; the phrase “identifying… that a replacement component… that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating… and which is a member” appears to be missing critical language describing what is actually identified. Additionally, it is not clear what is deployed in the recited “deployment”. Further, the recitations of “the endpoint device” in lines 8 and 9, as well as in lines 13-14, 15, 17, 22-23, and 23-24. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices (see lines 7-8) these limitations are intended to refer. Additionally, it is not grammatically clear what the phrases “that will prevent the endpoint device from authenticating” and “and which is a member of the deployment” are intended to modify. Still further, because the rest of the claimed steps are “based on the identifying” in line 11, and it is not clear what is identified, it is not clear how the other steps would be based on the identifying. The claim further recites “new credentials” in line 15 and “a new ownership voucher” in line 17. It is not clear whether there were old or previous credentials or vouchers in comparison to which the established credentials or voucher are new. The claim also recites “the owner of the endpoint device” in lines 23-24. Although the claim previously recited an owner, there is not clear antecedent basis for this more detailed limitation. The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “The management system” in line 1. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the overall management system of Claim 17, line 1, or the voucher management system. Claim 18 further recites “a trusted platform module that stored a secret” in line 2. The claim also recites “the endpoint device” in lines 2 and 3. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The timing of when the secret was stored is not clear. The claim additionally recites “the owners of the endpoint device” in line 3. Although the claims previously recited an owner, there is not clear antecedent basis for plural owners.
Claim 19 recites “The management system” in line 1. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the overall management system of Claim 17, line 1, or the voucher management system.
Claim 20 recites “The management system” in line 1. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to the overall management system of Claim 17, line 1, or the voucher management system. Claim 20 further recites “the onboarding credential was usable” in line 1 and “the ownership voucher comprised” in line 2. The use of past tense makes the timing of these steps unclear. The claim further recites “the endpoint device” in lines 1-2 and 3. It is not clear to which of the plural endpoint devices this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “an ownership voucher” and “the ownership voucher” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to refer to one of the vouchers in Claim 17 or a distinct voucher, and to which of the plural vouchers “the ownership voucher” is intended to refer.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Because the claims are rendered indefinite based on the numerous issues as detailed above (especially the impossibility of discerning what is identified in the first step of each independent claim and therefore how the subsequent steps would be “based on the identifying”) in reference to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it has not been possible to fully construe pending Claims 1-20 for novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. As per MPEP § 2173.06 II, if there is uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See also In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). A search has been performed to the extent possible, and references that appear to be relevant are cited below.
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 (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 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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by any general-purpose computer.
Claim 17 recites a management system comprising a processor and a memory, where the memory is “to store instructions”. This merely recites a capability or intended use of the memory. Any general-purpose computer includes a processor and a memory that is capable of storing instructions of the type recited in Claim 17. Therefore, because Claim 17 only requires the processor and memory, Claim 17 is anticipated by any general-purpose computer. Claims 18-20 do not require any additional structures and therefore are rejected by a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crews et al, US Patent 8100323, discloses an apparatus in which a motherboard including a TPM is replaced and the ownership of the new TPM is acquired based on certificates. See also Steinmetz et al, US Patent 8281985.
Chen et al, US patent 8689000, discloses a method in which replacement keys and certificates are created for TPMs.
Addepalli et al, US Patent 8863256, discloses a method in which a new ID is associated if a TPM is replaced.
Khatri et al, US Patent 11574080, discloses a system for validating hardware after a motherboard and TPM are replaced. See also Young et al, US Patent 11599642, and Young et al, US Patent 11810062.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights