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 .
Herein after “it would have been obvious” should be read as “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to applicants argument that none of the references used in the rejection include the newly added limitation of “verifying, by the network device, prior to determining a difference between power usage and power provided, that the at least one response is authenticated as originating from the corresponding computing device and satisfies a freshness mechanism”. This newly added limitation is a security mechanism for the communication. While Deaver et al, Chen et al, and Mick et al all have communication none address security in communication. Therefore multiple references are being cited that teach verifying the source of a message and a freshness mechanism. Wang et al PN 2023/0099065 teaches (Abstract: “The method includes: A first node receives a first association request message from a second node, where the first association request message includes a first fresh parameter; and the first node obtains a first pre-shared key PSK, where the first PSK corresponds to an identity of the second node, the first PSK is a PSK generated based on a second fresh parameter from the second node and a third fresh parameter from the first node, and the first PSK is used to verify the identity of the second node. According to the embodiments of this application, communication security can be improved.”) It would have been obvious to verify the correct device/responder is replying with the power consumption measurements because this would have prevented the power thief from spoofing a response with incorrect measurements. Wang et al also teaches a freshness mechanism. It would have been obvious to include a freshness mechanism because this would have prevented the thief from copying a response from the correct device then returning the response later after the thief has taken the power so that the amount before using the power would read minus the theft.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387, Mick et al PN 2014/0281614, and Wang et al PN 2023/0099065.
In regards to claims 1, 9, 15: Chen et al teaches transmitting, over a network, power and network data traffic ([0004] "In this disclosure, these relevant standards relevant to the PoE will be referred to as the "PoE standard" hereinafter. PoE technology allows supplying electric power through Ethernet to devices such as Internet phones, wireless access points, network cameras, hubs, and even computers without the need of extra power outlet. Combining data transmission and power supply, PoE technology can reduce the cost and complexity of the overall network computing system") from a network device (100) to one or more computing devices (21-23), the one or more computing devices being connected to a respective port (11-14) of a plurality of ports (11-14) of the network device; and mitigating the difference between the total power usage by the one or more computing devices and a threshold for power provided by the network device from the particular port, wherein mitigating the difference between threshold by the one or more computing devices and the total power provided by the network device from the particular port comprises cutting off power at the particular port that is connected to at least one of the one or more computing devices ([0013] “if the total is greater than the maximum power supply of the power source equipment, power supply to one or some connecting port is shut down so to make the total power consumption lower than the maximum power supply and to maintain other connecting ports in normal operation” [0021] “The monitoring device is further configured to shut the power source equipment from supplying power to a connecting port, when power consumption of the connecting port exceeds the upper limit power Icut associated with the connecting port, and to record each such shutdown event Ioff_event of the connecting ports and shutdown power Icut_old, which is the peak value of the power consumption at the shutdown event Ioff event or the then effective upper limit power Icut”). Chen et al teaches the differences being between the power measured at the ports and a threshold as opposed to the power delivered. Deaver et al teaches a method comprising: receiving power usage authorized to receive power (Abstract: “receiving meter data of the measured power consumed by a plurality of power customers”) from the power source (utility provider power plant supplying power to the LV subnet ([0118] “In an alternative method, the utility meters 208 may send wired or wireless communications to the utility provider or power line server 118 by another route (a route that does not include the communication device 210). In such example, the utility provider or power line server 118 also may receive the sensor device 198 data from the communication device 210, and process the data and the meter data to determine if power theft is occurring”) the at metered data including the indication of power usage for a corresponding customer ([0003] "Electrical power for consumption at residences, offices and other structures is delivered by a power distribution system. Electrical power is transmitted at high voltages from a power plant to substations near populated areas” … “Utility meters typically are located at the consumer's premises to measure the amount of power being consumed at the premises. Equipment, appliances and other devices plug into power outlets at the premises and draw power”); determining a difference between a total power usage by the one or more computing devices and a total power provided by the power source ([0143] “The power usage data from the utility meters 208 of the LV subnet receiving power from the distribution transformer 112 may be summed together and compared to the power supplied to the LV subnet. If there is a significant discrepancy between the aggregate measured power usage data (from the meters) and the estimated power delivered to the LV subnet, a power theft may be detected. The utility may respond to discrepancies, and possible power theft, in a manner similar to that described above with regard to the other configurations”), and mitigating the difference between the total power usage by the consumer and the total power provided by the power source ([0120] “In one embodiment in which the communication device 210 identifies power theft, the power line communication device 210 (or other communication device), may transmit an alert to a remote device. Alternately, if the power line server or other remote computer identifies the discrepancy (or receives the alert), the computer or server may log the discrepancy, determine the location (e.g., by pole number, street address, etc.) and provide notice to the utility provider” [0122] “Still in another alternative, the response may be to install additional sensor devices 198 (as described below) to isolate the source of the discrepancy more precisely to a specific supply line 206 and/or premises 204"). Deaver et al does not teach sending a query to read the metered data but instead only states teaches the metered data is transmitted to the utility provider ([0055] "Thus, the sensor device 115 of some embodiments may include a controller, an analog to digital converter (ADC), and a memory coupled to said ADC (perhaps via a controller) and configured to store current data. Alternately, the data may be transmitted to the power line server 118 or another remote computer for processing") Deaver et al also does not state the consumers may be one or more computing devices. Mick et al teaches ([0026] "query operational status information such as temperature and power usage of a computing device;" [0027] "For example, the RMC 120 may periodically request power usage information from each computing device and store the received information in the storage 152. The logic module 150 may then take some management action based on the individual or aggregate power usage of the devices in the rack system 100"). It would have been obvious to compare the measured power total of the ports to the total power supplied from the power source to determine if there is a power thief because this would have prevented stealing power from the source. It would have been obvious to have the power provided query the power usage information of a computing device because this would have allowed the system to control when the power usage is obtained. Chen et al and Deaver et al both teaches a power network. Mick et al and Chen et al both teach a computer network (Chen et al [0005] "In the PoE system, a powered device is connected to the network and configured to obtain or request power from the power source equipment over the network") (Mick et al [0026] "The network 156 may be any type of network such as a local area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), the Internet, an intranet, a management-type network within a data center, or any other type of network known in the art". Deaver et al teaches the power usage is measured by a meter attached to the customer premises (Abstract "receiving meter data of the measured power consumed" and [0143] "If there is a significant discrepancy between the aggregate measured power usage data (from the meters) and the estimated power delivered to the LV subnet, a power theft may be detected."). Chen et al teaches ([0014] “At this moment, if the PoE system measures the actual power consumption of the powered device"). While Mick et al teaches each device provides the power usage information which must be either measured or estimated, Mick et al does not use the words measured or estimated. Deaver et al however does expressly use the word measured therefore It would have been obvious to have the returned power usage information be measured by the device because this is one of the only methods to collect the power usage information. Chen et al and Deaver et al do not teach security in the communication by “verifying, by the network device, prior to determining a difference between power usage and power provided, that the at least one response is authenticated as originating from the corresponding computing device and satisfies a freshness mechanism;” Wang et al teaches (Abstract: “The method includes: A first node receives a first association request message from a second node, where the first association request message includes a first fresh parameter; and the first node obtains a first pre-shared key PSK, where the first PSK corresponds to an identity of the second node, the first PSK is a PSK generated based on a second fresh parameter from the second node and a third fresh parameter from the first node, and the first PSK is used to verify the identity of the second node. According to the embodiments of this application, communication security can be improved.”) It would have been obvious to verify the correct device/responder is replying with the power consumption measurements because this would have prevented the power thief from spoofing a response with incorrect measurements. Wang et al also teaches a freshness mechanism. It would have been obvious to include a freshness mechanism because this would have prevented the thief from copying a response from the correct device then returning the response later after the thief has taken the power so that the amount before using the power would read minus the theft. The claim language includes “when verification is successful” performing the function for which the data is being acquired. It would have been obvious to only perform the function for which the data is acquired when the data is verified from a correct device because this would have prevented wasting time be calculating on incorrect/false data.
In regards to claims 2, 10, 16: Mick et al only expressly teaches sending a query/request for the power usage information but does not mention any security for the message. Wang et al teaches a PSK (pre-shared key) which is a private key [0035].
In regards to claims 4, 12, 18: Wang et al teaches verification and cryptography. ([0010] “first node may verify the identity authentication information of the second node by using the first PSK”. [0370] “A cryptographic algorithm used for key agreement is referred to as a key agreement algorithm, and may also be referred to as a key exchange algorithm”
In regards to claim 6: Deaver et al teaches a timestamp ([0107] “the measurement is given the timestamp of the last ADC sample used to make the measurement.”. Wang et al teaches returning a nonce ([0387] “A fresh parameter is a parameter used to generate a key, may also be referred to as a fresh degree or a freshness parameter, and may include at least one of a nonce (number once, NONCE), a count (counter), a sequence number (number), and the like. The NONCE is a random number that is used only once (or non-repeatedly). Fresh parameters generated at different moments are usually different. In other words, a specific value of the fresh parameter changes each time the fresh parameter is generated. Therefore, a fresh parameter used to generate a key this time is different from a fresh parameter used to generate a key last time. This can improve security of the generated key”).
In regards to claims 7, 14, 20: Chen et al and Deaver et al both teaches cutting off power/isolating the source. Deaver et al teaches ([0060] "In various embodiments, data from the sensor devices 115 of the system or within a region or neighborhood covered by a sub-portion of the system may be sampled substantially simultaneously (e.g., all sensor devices 115 sample within a thirty second, sixty second, three minute, or five minute time period). Such samples may be gathered at a set scheduled time, at regular times, at regular intervals, or in response to a command received from a remote computer. Uses of the measured (and processed) power line parameter data are described below in more detail"). Chen et al and Deaver et al teach the responses are associated with particular ports/clients.
In regards to claim 8: Deaver et al teaches determining transmission losses and including the transmission losses in the difference calculations ([0113] "Minor discrepancies may be expected due to power line losses and power utility devices. Such a discrepancy is expected to be generally constant, and thus identifiable. Discrepancies due to power theft typically will be larger and vary over time according to the amount of power being stolen (i.e., consumed by the devices or premises that is illegally connected to the power line").
In regards to claim 21: Deaver et al teaches determining power leakage/theft on a customer premises thus it is an allowed vs ([0113] "premises that is illegally connected to the power line"). Wang et al teaches authentication.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over hen et al PN 2017/0214533 in view of Deaver et al PN 2008/0109387, Mick et al PN 2014/0281614, and Wang et al PN 2023/0099065 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanks et al PN 2016/0337212.
In regards to claims 3, 11, 17: Deaver et al teaches communicating power information but does not mention the communication protocol. Mick et al teaches sending a query but does not mention broadcasting the query. Shanks et al teaches broadcasting a query using one of the various link layer discovery protocols ([0049] " In various implementations, the uplink metadata from compliant devices conforms to at least one of a number of link layer discovery protocols, such as LLDP, CDP, EDP, FDP, SONMP, LLTD, etc. "). "). It would have been obvious to use a link layer discovery protocols to broadcast a query (([0049] “For example, with reference to FIG. I, the cloud hosted management server 112 produces and transmits a broadcast query through the metadata tunnel 160") for the power usage because this is a common communication method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 13, 19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Multiple references are sited determining that the device/message is unauthorized. Wang et al mention verification failure but only discussed how to avoid verification failure. However none teach after a successful verification, “identifying the corresponding computing device as unauthorized based on the difference after successful verification”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/Paul R. MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights