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
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16, and 18-23 are pending.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, particularly the application of the Calhoon reference, replacing the Amuduri reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1,3-7, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engler et al (US Pub. No. 2019/0371139), hereafter, “Engler,” in view of Calhoon (US Pub. No. 2004/0150958).
As to claim 1, Engler discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
monitoring, using at least one receiver positioned at least partially within a chassis of a device, at least one light-based signal that is transmitted (Fig. 2, labels 115, 145, and 210, [0024], particularly, “Block 210 represents some functional capabilities associated with intrusion monitor 145. As briefly explained above, intrusion monitor 145 may include a variety of sensors and be in communication with a number of external sensors to detect abnormal (or unexpected) physical activity with respect to device 1 (115). Block 210 indicates that a sensor may include a photocell sensor (e.g., infra-red and/or ambient light sensor) that may determine a change in ambient light within a chassis of a computer system. For example, if a hole were drilled into the chassis, a cover plate removed, or a lid opened. Any of these actions would likely change the amount of light present within the internal area of device 1 (115) and may indicate intrusion.”);
determining, based on the monitoring, whether at least one moveable part of the chassis is in a first position that provides at least partial access to one or more hardware components located within the chassis ([0024], particularly, “Block 210 represents some functional capabilities associated with intrusion monitor 145. As briefly explained above, intrusion monitor 145 may include a variety of sensors and be in communication with a number of external sensors to detect abnormal (or unexpected) physical activity with respect to device 1 (115). Block 210 indicates that a sensor may include a photocell sensor (e.g., infra-red and/or ambient light sensor) that may determine a change in ambient light within a chassis of a computer system. For example, if a hole were drilled into the chassis, a cover plate removed, or a lid opened. Any of these actions would likely change the amount of light present within the internal area of device 1 (115) and may indicate intrusion.”), and
initiating one or more automated actions to at least partially secure the device in response to a result of the determining (Fig. 5 and [0036], particularly, “Block 535 indicates that a first level of corrective actions may be taken. For example, issue an alert or obtain confirmation from a system administrator via a challenge response mechanism or acknowledgement of the alert. Block 540 indicates that further measurements (or an unsuccessful challenge response) may indicate an actual intrusion event. Block 545 indicates that alerts may be issued through a primary or secondary communication capability as necessary. Block 550 indicates that data may be encrypted in response to the suspected intrusion event. Block 555 indicates that data and components may be destroyed, e.g., through a “kill-pill” or electronic overload, in response to a detected intrusion event. Different levels of response may be determined based on a collective analysis of all detected intrusion measurements and sensitivity of computer systems.”);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (Figs 1-3).
However, Engler does not explicitly disclose the at least one light-based signal is transmitted from within the chassis of the device by at least one transmitter positioned at least partially within the chassis and
the at least one moveable part comprises at least one reflector that is at least one of: (i) attached to the at least one moveable part and (ii) at least partially integrated into the at least one moveable part, wherein the at least one reflector is positioned to reflect the at least one light-based signal to the at least one receiver when the at least one moveable part is in a second position that restricts the at least partial access to the one or more hardware components.
But, Calhoon discloses monitoring, using at least one receiver positioned at least partially within a chassis of a device, at least one light-based signal that is transmitted from within the chassis of the device by at least one transmitter positioned at least partially within the chassis (Fig. 1 and [0016], particularly, “Referring to FIG. 1, to monitor the presence of the cover 112, the reflective optical sensors 150 are located within the case 102 adjacent the cover. Each of the reflective optical sensors 150 includes a light emitter and a light detector. The sensor 150 is positioned such that the light generated by its light emitter is reflected by a reflective surface 154 on the inner side of the cover and received by its light detector.”);
determining, based on the monitoring, whether at least one moveable part of the chassis is in a first position that provides at least partial access to one or more hardware components located within the chassis, wherein the at least one moveable part comprises at least one reflector that is at least one of: (i) attached to the at least one moveable part and (ii) at least partially integrated into the at least one moveable part, wherein the at least one reflector is positioned to reflect the at least one light-based signal to the at least one receiver when the at least one moveable part is in a second position that restricts the at least partial access to the one or more hardware components (Fig. 3 and [0016]-[0017], particularly, “The sensor 150 is positioned such that the light generated by its light emitter is reflected by a reflective surface 154 on the inner side of the cover and received by its light detector…Normally, when the cover is in place, the light from the LED 160 is reflected by the reflective surface of the cover onto the phototransistor 164. The phototransistor 164 is saturated by the light, and its output signal is a logical "0". Upon removal of the cover, the phototransistor 164 ceases to be saturated, and its output signal changes to a logical "1". This transition from "0" to "1" is a signal that the cover has been removed.”; “cover” reading on “the at least one moveable part”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Engler and Calhoon in order to provide a system with greater active detection capabilities so as to provide for a higher level of security.
As to claims 10 and 16, they are rejected by as similar rationale by that set forth in claim 1’s rejection.
As to claims 3, 12, and 18, the teachings of Engler and Calhoon as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose determining that the at least one moveable part is in the second position based on the at least one receiver receiving at least a portion of the at least one light-based signal (Engler, [0036], particularly, “Block 535 indicates that a first level of corrective actions may be taken. For example, issue an alert or obtain confirmation from a system administrator via a challenge response mechanism or acknowledgement of the alert. Block 540 indicates that further measurements (or an unsuccessful challenge response) may indicate an actual intrusion event. Block 545 indicates that alerts may be issued through a primary or secondary communication capability as necessary. Block 550 indicates that data may be encrypted in response to the suspected intrusion event. Block 555 indicates that data and components may be destroyed, e.g., through a “kill-pill” or electronic overload, in response to a detected intrusion event. Different levels of response may be determined based on a collective analysis of all detected intrusion measurements and sensitivity of computer systems.” And Calhoon, [0017]).
As to claims 4, 13, and 19, the teachings of Engler and Calhoon as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose receiving the at least one light-based signal at the at least one receiver; extracting information from the at least one light-based signal; and initiating a validation process to validate the at least one light-based signal based on the extracted information (Engler, Fig. 5 and [0036], particularly, “Block 525 indicates that an opening of a lid of a computer system may be detected. Block 530 indicates that each of these detected events, if present, may be used with security parameters for different devices within the secure computer room to determine if unauthorized actions may be in-progress or suspected. Block 535 indicates that a first level of corrective actions may be taken. For example, issue an alert or obtain confirmation from a system administrator via a challenge response mechanism or acknowledgement of the alert. Block 540 indicates that further measurements (or an unsuccessful challenge response) may indicate an actual intrusion event. Block 545 indicates that alerts may be issued through a primary or secondary communication capability as necessary. Block 550 indicates that data may be encrypted in response to the suspected intrusion event. Block 555 indicates that data and components may be destroyed, e.g., through a “kill-pill” or electronic overload, in response to a detected intrusion event. Different levels of response may be determined based on a collective analysis of all detected intrusion measurements and sensitivity of computer systems.”).
As to claims 5, 14, and 20, the teachings of Engler and Calhoon as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose initiating at least one of the one or more automated actions in response to a result of the validation process indicating that the at least one light-based signal is invalid (Engler, Fig. 5 and [0036], particularly, “Block 525 indicates that an opening of a lid of a computer system may be detected. Block 530 indicates that each of these detected events, if present, may be used with security parameters for different devices within the secure computer room to determine if unauthorized actions may be in-progress or suspected. Block 535 indicates that a first level of corrective actions may be taken. For example, issue an alert or obtain confirmation from a system administrator via a challenge response mechanism or acknowledgement of the alert. Block 540 indicates that further measurements (or an unsuccessful challenge response) may indicate an actual intrusion event. Block 545 indicates that alerts may be issued through a primary or secondary communication capability as necessary. Block 550 indicates that data may be encrypted in response to the suspected intrusion event. Block 555 indicates that data and components may be destroyed, e.g., through a “kill-pill” or electronic overload, in response to a detected intrusion event. Different levels of response may be determined based on a collective analysis of all detected intrusion measurements and sensitivity of computer systems.”).
As to claims 6, 15, and 21 the teachings of Engler and Calhoon as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose generating the information based at least in part on one or more identifiers associated with the one or more hardware components (Engler, Fig. 5 and [0036], particularly, “Block 525 indicates that an opening of a lid of a computer system may be detected. Block 530 indicates that each of these detected events, if present, may be used with security parameters for different devices within the secure computer room to determine if unauthorized actions may be in-progress or suspected. Block 535 indicates that a first level of corrective actions may be taken. For example, issue an alert or obtain confirmation from a system administrator via a challenge response mechanism or acknowledgement of the alert. Block 540 indicates that further measurements (or an unsuccessful challenge response) may indicate an actual intrusion event. Block 545 indicates that alerts may be issued through a primary or secondary communication capability as necessary. Block 550 indicates that data may be encrypted in response to the suspected intrusion event. Block 555 indicates that data and components may be destroyed, e.g., through a “kill-pill” or electronic overload, in response to a detected intrusion event. Different levels of response may be determined based on a collective analysis of all detected intrusion measurements and sensitivity of computer systems.”).
As to claims 7 and 22, the teachings of Engler and Calhoon as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the one or more automated actions comprise at least one of: transmitting a notification to an external system; automatically shutting down the device; and causing the device to enter a secure state that prevents the device from performing a boot process (Engler, Fig. 5 and [0036], particularly, “Block 525 indicates that an opening of a lid of a computer system may be detected. Block 530 indicates that each of these detected events, if present, may be used with security parameters for different devices within the secure computer room to determine if unauthorized actions may be in-progress or suspected. Block 535 indicates that a first level of corrective actions may be taken. For example, issue an alert or obtain confirmation from a system administrator via a challenge response mechanism or acknowledgement of the alert. Block 540 indicates that further measurements (or an unsuccessful challenge response) may indicate an actual intrusion event. Block 545 indicates that alerts may be issued through a primary or secondary communication capability as necessary. Block 550 indicates that data may be encrypted in response to the suspected intrusion event. Block 555 indicates that data and components may be destroyed, e.g., through a “kill-pill” or electronic overload, in response to a detected intrusion event. Different levels of response may be determined based on a collective analysis of all detected intrusion measurements and sensitivity of computer systems.”).
As to claim 9, the teachings of Engler and Calhoon as combined for the same reasons set forth in claim 1’s rejection further disclose the at least one light-based signal comprises a visible light communication signal (Engler, [0018]).
Claim 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engler and Calhoon in further view of Zaman et al (US Pub. No. 2022/0141239).
As to claim 8, Engler and Calhoon disclose the parent claims but does not disclose obtaining approval to exit the secure state from at least one of: a designated user associated with the device and the external system.
However, Zaman discloses obtaining approval to exit the secure state from at least one of: a designated user associated with the device and the external system (Fig. 3 and [0049], particularly, “After blocking, restricting, or limiting the network and physical access, the network access controller can send an approval request to a user for allowing the activity, at step 340. The user can be the authorized user of the device or an administrator. If the user approves the request at step 345, the network access controller can undo the network and physical access changes, at step 350. Otherwise, if the request is not approved at step 345, the network access controller can keep the network and physical access blocked, restricted, or limited at step 355. The administrators can then take appropriate action, for example, reporting the trespass and theft to the local authorities.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Engler and Calhoon with Zaman in order to provide a known and reliable means of returning systems to operational states so as to decrease the downtime of systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458