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 .
This Office Action is responsive to preliminary amendment filed on 09/29/2023. In this preliminary amendment, claims 21-32 were canceled. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 17-20 use the language means or step for.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart et al. US 2020/0076891 (“Stuart”) in view of Mondello et al. US 2020/0313851 (“Mondello”).
As per independent claim 1, Stuart teaches An apparatus for monitoring a compute device (“a GHG [greenhouse gas] tracking system 100” para 0024 and FIG. 1), the apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry (“peer-to-peer network 150” para 0024 and FIG. 1);
machine readable instructions (computer-readable medium comprising instructions, see claim 11);
programmable circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions (“processor 212” para 0025 and FIG. 2) to:
analyze telemetry data obtained via a sensor of the compute device, the analyzing of the telemetry data to detect an undesired event (“The meter 210 may comprise a tamper detection device 250 that detects tampering. If the tamper detection device 250 detects an incident of tampering, such as opening the meter, the tamper detection device 250 signals the processor 212.” Para 0033 and FIGS. 1 and 2);
storing, in response to detection of the undesired event, the telemetry data in a ledger (“the processor 212 may transmit tampering data containing an identification or signature of the meter 210, a GPS coordinate, and/or the time of tampering to the distributed ledger 150.” Para 0033 and FIG. 2).
Stuart discloses all of the claim limitations from above and additionally teaches signing with private and public keys. Para 0038 of Stuart. Stuart does not explicitly teach “non-volatile flash memory” and “wherein the ledger is digitally signed to prevent unauthorized modification and stored in the non-volatile flash memory”.
However, in an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Mondello teaches non-volatile flash memory (“Memory array 101 can be, for example, a flash memory array” para 0025 and FIG. 1);
wherein the ledger is digitally signed to prevent unauthorized modification and stored in the non-volatile flash memory (“memory device 206 (e.g., using circuitry 210) can send, via interface 204, the block chain data 220 (which may be a received global block from the global ledger block chain), along with the digital signature associated with block chain data 220, to the host 202 for validation of the update (e.g., the payload of the block chain data) before updating data stored in memory array 201.” Para 0045).
Given the teaching of Mondello, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the scope of the invention of Stuart with “non-volatile flash memory” and “wherein the ledger is digitally signed to prevent unauthorized modification and stored in the non-volatile flash memory”. The motivation would be that the invention attempts to prevent hacking of memory which may cause significant financial losses, para 0021 of Mondello.
As per dependent claim 2, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Stuart may not explicitly disclose, but Mondello teaches wherein the digitally signed ledger is not accessible by a user of the compute device (“inaccessible portion in which block chain data 220 and the local ledger block chain is stored” para 0044).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Stuart and Mondello as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 2.
As per dependent claim 3, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Stuart may not explicitly disclose, but Mondello teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to digitally sign the ledger (“the digital signature associated with block chain data 220,” para 0045).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Stuart and Mondello as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 2.
As per dependent claim 4, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 3. Stuart may not explicitly disclose, but Mondello teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to decode the digitally signed ledger, the decoded ledger is used to analyze usage and wear of the compute device (“a run-time cryptographic hash can be generated (e.g., calculated), and compared with the golden hash. If the comparison indicates the run-time and golden hashes match, it can be determined that the secure array has not been altered, and therefore the data stored therein is valid.” Para 0048).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Stuart and Mondello as set forth in claim 3 is equally applicable to claim 4.
As per dependent claim 5, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Stuart may not explicitly disclose, but Mondello teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to process ledger transmission requests from an external service, the external service to maintain a copy of the ledger (“In the example of FIG. 2B, multiple nodes, 200-1, 200-2, 200-3, . . . , 200-N, are shown connected in a network such as a peer to peer network. The network can support a distributed ledger technology (DLT) such as “block chain” technology. A distributed ledger is a database that is spread over several nodes or computing devices.” Para 0054).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Stuart and Mondello as set forth in claim 3 is equally applicable to claim 4.
As per dependent claim 6, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Stuart may not explicitly disclose, but Mondello teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to communicate the ledger to the external service (“In the example of FIG. 2B, multiple nodes, 200-1, 200-2, 200-3, . . . , 200-N, are shown connected in a network such as a peer to peer network. The network can support a distributed ledger technology (DLT) such as “block chain” technology. A distributed ledger is a database that is spread over several nodes or computing devices.” Para 0054).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Stuart and Mondello as set forth in claim 5 is equally applicable to claim 6.
As per dependent claim 7, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Stuart teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to analyze the telemetry data and store the telemetry data in the ledger when the compute device is in use (“the processor 212 may transmit tampering data containing an identification or signature of the meter 210, a GPS coordinate, and/or the time of tampering to the distributed ledger 150.” Para 0033 and FIG. 2).
As per dependent claim 8, Stuart in combination with Mondello discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Stuart teaches wherein the programmable circuitry is to store an entry in the ledger indicating that an undesired event has occurred, wherein the entry is used to analyze usage and wear of the compute device (“the processor 212 may transmit tampering data containing an identification or signature of the meter 210, a GPS coordinate, and/or the time of tampering to the distributed ledger 150.” Para 0033 and FIG. 2).
As per claims 9-16, these claims are respectively rejected based on arguments provided above for similar rejected claim 1-8. For computer program product on a non-transitory computer readable medium see claim 11 of Stuart.
As per claims 17-20, these claims are respectively rejected based on arguments provided above for similar rejected claims 1-2, 4, and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZUBAIR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 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, HOSAIN T. ALAM can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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.
/ZUBAIR AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
