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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the previously presented Terpstra reference is allegedly silent with respect to the claim amendments, and that “With respect to Hui, the Office has not shown any disclosure of Grimm that teaches or suggests the above limitations”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the Terpstra does not teach the newly amended limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 reciting, inter alia, “verifying that a user has a privilege to initiate a modification; receiving, from the user, a selection of a blueprint; receiving, from the user, a limit of use of the blueprint”. However, verifying user privileges, receiving a selection from a user, and receiving “a limit of use of the blueprint” from a user are well known in the art as shown in the previously presented Hui reference. Hui at paragraphs [0040-0041] teaches at least the concept of verifying a role that limits a class of configurations/commands to a particular user role, which renders obvious the claimed “verifying that a user has a privilege to initiate a modification” and the claimed “receiving, from the user, a limit of use of the blueprint” because the role ensures that the technician/engineer has the permissions to perform such a modification, and the role limits what the engineer may perform. Furthermore, Hui at paragraphs [0039-0042] teaches at least configuration information that may comprise a series of commands to be executed by the endpoint device, thereby rendering obvious the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “receiving, from the user, a selection of a blueprint”.
Furthermore, there is no previous rejection on the record that relies on “Grimm”, so the Examiner is unsure as to what the Applicant may be referring to by “any disclosure of Grimm that teaches or suggests the above limitations.
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.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15:
The term “a limit of use” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a limit of use” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of what constitutes “a limit of use” is not discernible because there is no standard for ascertaining what “use” is being limited, and neither the remainder of the claims, nor the originally filed disclosure provide any further explanation of the term.
Respective dependent claims fall together accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terpstra et. al. (US Publication No. US 2023/0229779 A1) hereinafter Terpstra in view of Hui et. al. (US Publication No. US 2015/0365238 A1) hereinafter Hui.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15:
Claim 8. Terpstra discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of endpoint devices of a deployment, the operations comprising (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated): … obtaining, by an endpoint device of the endpoint devices, a blueprint token that indicates that the endpoint device is to implement a blueprint (Terpstra [0114] “The digitally signed package will contain metadata that describes its content (e.g., a singlet containing an ‘action’ component, or one or more tuples each including a ‘binary payload’ and an ‘action’ component)”), … and the blueprint token indicates the modification to the endpoint device (Terpstra [0062-0064]); in response to obtaining the blueprint token, performing by the endpoint device: making a first determination regarding whether a blueprint specified by the blueprint token is trusted (Terpstra [0114] “Upon receipt by the target computing device, the package will be digitally attested using its private key (e.g., a TPM-based private certificate)”); in a first instance of the first determination where the blueprint is trusted: making a second determination regarding whether the blueprint is authorized for use by the endpoint device (Terpstra [0113-0117]); in a first instance of the second determination where the blueprint is authorized for use by the endpoint device: making a third determination regarding whether integrity of the blueprint can be verified (Terpstra [0113-0117] hashing checks integrity); in a first instance of the third determination where the integrity of the blueprint can be verified: implementing a portion of objects specified by the blueprint that can be verified (Terpstra [0117] action component of the package is executed), the objects being implemented in an order specified by the blueprint (Terpstra [0117] action component of the package is executed; [0120] control plane may implement or utilize a tool chain to “implement hypervisor virtualization infrastructure 1110-1 and/or a container orchestration system 1110-2 (e.g., Kubernetes) to implement various tools (e.g., as virtual computing resources such as VMs or containers in a cloud infrastructure) Such tools illustratively include an edge device onboarding provisioning system 1112 having a rendezvous server 1114 and an onboarding/provisioning server 1116, a partner and application onboarding system 1118 including a partner database 1120 and application database 1122, a device registry 1124, and an application registry 1126”; [0121] action packages may be executed in serial execution as ordered), and implementation of the portion of the objects conforming the operation of the endpoint device to the blueprint (Terpstra [0117], [0120-0121]); and providing computer implemented services using at least the portion of objects (Terpstra [0117-0121] once completed the device goes “live” and provides the service after being configured).
Terpstra does not explicitly disclose verifying that a user has a privilege to initiate a modification; receiving, from the user, a selection of a blueprint; receiving, from the user, a limit of use of the blueprint; … wherein the blueprint token comprises a timestamp that is replay attack resistant.
Hui teaches verifying that a user has a privilege to initiate a modification (Hui [0040-0041] “Role 340 is used to limit a class of configurations/commands to a particular user role, providing a degree of flexibility that the operator or technician has with regard to configuring or interacting with the endpoint device. In some cases, the user role may establish a range of values (e.g., a subset of all possible values) for configurations that a technician may be allowed to implement. Alternatively, a technician may not be allowed to alter certain configurations at all. Example user roles may include: (i) an administrative role encompassing all configuration/management commands, (ii) a technician role, including all commands except configuration and reboot commands, and (iii) a viewer role with limited access, etc. Username 350 may be used by the endpoint device to log interactions with other devices”); receiving, from the user, a selection of a blueprint (Hui [0039-0042] “The work order may also contain configuration information or values 360 dictated by the NMS that includes LLN device configuration parameters to be updated, via the work order generated by the NMS, as well as acceptable values or valid ranges for each device configuration parameter. Configuration information may comprise a series of commands to be executed by the endpoint device”); receiving, from the user, a limit of use of the blueprint (Hui Figure 3 time window, [0039-0042] “Time window 330 determines the window of time during which the work order is valid. In some embodiments, the time window may be determined by a start date, e.g., a time stamp indicating the beginning of a valid time period for the work order, and an end date indicating a future point in time specifying the end of the valid time period” the window of time which the work order is valid limits the use); …wherein the blueprint token comprises a timestamp that is replay attack resistant (Hui Figure 3 time window, [0039-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the context-aware device provisioning disclosed by Terpstra with the privilege check, timestamp, and sequence number taught by Hui. The motivation for this combination would be to improve security of the system by preventing unauthorized user roles from making modifications and preventing replay attacks.
Claims 1 and 15 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales. Terpstra further discloses a method for managing operation of endpoint devices of a deployment (Terpstra [0225-0226]); and Terpstra further discloses an endpoint device, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of the endpoint device as a member of a deployment (Terpstra [0046-0048]).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16:
Claim 9. The combination of Terpstra and Hui further teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8 (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated), wherein the operations further comprise: in the first instance of the third determination where the integrity of the blueprint can be verified: while the objects are being implemented, logging activity of the endpoint device to obtain an auditable implementation trail for the endpoint device (Terpstra [0118] “Upon completion of handling of the ‘action’ component, the target computing device will send to the control plane a signed package containing the confirmation of completion. This signed package may include any log information that was specified/requested within the ‘action’ package metadata”; [0127] all communication information and transactions are logged, “the various actions, in some embodiments, are made auditable”).
Claims 2 and 16 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17:
Claim 10. The combination of Terpstra and Hui further teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8 (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated), wherein making the first determination comprises: obtaining verification data for the blueprint (Terpstra [0113-0115] “Upon receipt by the target computing device, the package will be digitally attested using its private key (e.g., a TPM-based private certificate). The digitally signed package will contain metadata that describes its content (e.g., a singlet containing an “action” component, or one or more tuples each including a “binary payload” and an “action” component); 3. Upon successful validation, the target computing device will calculate an acceptable Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC) checksum (e.g., an MD5 hash) of the entire package or bundle. The target computing device will send a signed package containing the HMAC checksum data to the control plane for confirmation.”); and attempting to verify trust in the blueprint using the verification data to make the first determination (Terpstra [0113-0117]).
Claims 3 and 17 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18:
Claim 11. The combination of Terpstra and Hui further teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10 (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated), wherein the verification data comprises a hash of the blueprint that is signed (Terpstra [0113-0115] hashing explicitly disclosed), and attempting to verify the trust in the blueprint comprises using a public key to check a signature applied to the hash (Terpstra [0113] signed using the public key).
Claims 4 and 18 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19:
Claim 12. The combination of Terpstra and Hui further teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8 (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated), wherein making the second determination comprises: obtaining at least one assignment for a plurality of blueprints to the endpoint device (Terpstra [0113-0117] and [0125-0127] application registry or repository is used to track which bundles need to be implemented by which target device serial numbers or other IDs and may maintain a queue of required actions to be implemented); and comparing the blueprint to the plurality of blueprints to ascertain whether the blueprint is one of the plurality of blueprints to make the second determination (Terpstra [0113-0117] and [0125-0127] registry and acknowledgements of received particular bundles required).
Claims 5 and 19 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20:
Claim 13. The combination of Terpstra and Hui further teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12 (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated), wherein each of the at least one assignment attests an assignment of at least one of the plurality of blueprints for use by the endpoint device (Terpstra [0113-0117], [0121] edge device attests blob received, and [0125-0127]), the at least one assignment being made by an administrator (Terpstra [0126] “This bundle preparation service provides various functionality, including but not limited to: preparing the bundle metadata (e.g., with a configurable data structure and key)… digitally signing the bundle with the edge device's ownership token; and adding the resulting bundle to the transmission queue.”; [0122] ownership token belongs to a manufacturer, vendor, or owner), and the at least one assignment being cryptographically verifiable by the endpoint device (Terpstra [0126] “digitally signing the bundle with the edge device's ownership token; and adding the resulting bundle to the transmission queue.”).
Claims 6 and 20 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14:
Claim 14. The combination of Terpstra and Hui further teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8 (Terpstra [0228-0231] computer readable media contemplated), wherein making the third determination comprises: obtaining verification data for the blueprint (Terpstra [0113-0117] hashing checks integrity); and comparing a first hash in the verification data to a second hash of the blueprint to make the third determination (Terpstra [0113-0117] “the target computing device will calculate an acceptable Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC) checksum (e.g., an MD5 hash) of the entire package or bundle. The target computing device will send a signed package containing the HMAC checksum data to the control plane for confirmation. The transaction metadata will describe the action pending upon successful receipt of the package from the target computing device; 4. Upon receipt of confirmation from the target computing device, the control plane will send to the target computing device a signed “confirm” or “deny” response. If the target computing device receives a deny response, it will perform an immediate factory reset and shutdown. The control plane will log the denial, and alert the preparer of the instruction/deployment package as to the success or failure of the transaction”).
Claim 7 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the submitted PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1241. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached on 5712727624. 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.
/M.A.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights