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
This office action is in response to communication filed 10/28/25.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 1-12 and the amendment of claim 13,21,26, and 28-29.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art of record is silent on teaching the preselection of the mode of communication, the reference of Henneberry teaches proving group settings that include communication path and the group settings activated by entering the group credential (paragraph 010,052,084,092,102). The settings also indicates how information is provided to the user (paragraph 0123-0124).
In response to applicant’s argument that the reference of Henneberry is silent on teaching the limitation of the authorize user access to the portion of the operational features of the IED is for a predetermined period of time, the reference of Henneberry teaches allowing access to the IED functionality only during certain time periods based on the user ID (paragraph 099).
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) 13-15,17-23,25-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henneberry US Patent Application Publication 20070055889 in view of Brainard et al. US Patent 7363494.
Regarding claim 13, Henneberry teaches a method of granting authorized users access to operational features of an intelligent electronic device (IED), the method comprising:
storing a user profile in a database, wherein the user profile includes a user credential and a preferred means of communication (paragraph 010-011,041,087,0100), Henneberry teaches proving group settings that include communication path and the group settings activated by entering the group credential (paragraph 010,052,084,092,102);
receiving, via a first sensor, user authentication information (keypad, touchscreen, paragraph 097);
verifying, via a control module, the user authentication information, wherein the control module includes a decision circuit configured to compare the user authentication information to the user credential (010-011,0100);
transmitting a password to an external device via a processing module using the preferred means of communication if the user authentication information (authentication is also perform by the external controller, paragraph 087);
receiving, via a second sensor, a user-entered password (0100-0111);
verifying, via the control module, the user-entered password, wherein the decision circuit is configured to compare the user-entered password to the stored password and generate a signal if the user-entered password and the stored password match (paragraph 010-011,0100-0111);
transmitting the signal to a processing module that is configured to administer operational features of the IED (099,0111);
wherein the signal enables an input device for a predetermined period of time, the input device is configured to receive an input to grant the authorized user access to the portion of the operational features of the IED for the predetermined period of time (paragraph 025,031-033,099). Henneberry teaches the sensor includes a first receiver configured to receive the user authentication information and a second receiver configured to receiver the password, and wherein the first receiver accepts data in a different way than the second receiver (card reader, keypad, paragraph 097,0100,0110) but is silent on teaching the password is a dynamic password. Brainard et al. in an analogous art teaches receiving user authentication information (PIN or password), generating a dynamic password and transmitting the dynamic password to an external device for user authentication (col. 5 line 27-col. 6 line 29). Brainard teaches verifying the authentication information (col. 1 lines 50-64,col. 7 lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Henneberry as disclosed by Brainard because such modification improves the security of the IED device by decreasing the chance that the password can be used by an unauthorized person to gain access.
Regarding claim 14, Henneberry teaches the input device is a touch-screen display (paragraph 041).
. Regarding claim 15, Henneberry teaches the IED is selected from the group consisting of an electrical power and/or energy meter, an analyzer of quality of electrical power, an electrical Remote Terminal Unit, an electrical protective relay, an electrical power fault recorder, a Programmable Logic Controller, a water meter, and a gas meter (paragraph 025-026).
Regarding claim 17, Henneberry teaches transmitting via a communication module over a network, and wherein the network is at least one of a WIFI network, a cellular network, a mesh network, a satellite network, a wide area network (WAN), a personal area network (PAN) and/or a local area network (LAN) (telephone line formed the wide area network (paragraph 042) but is silent on teaching transmitting the dynamically generated password over the network. Brainard in an analogous art teaches transmitting the dynamically generated password via a communication module over a network, and wherein the network is at least one of a WIFI network, a cellular network, a mesh network, a satellite network, a wide area network (WAN), a personal area network (PAN) and/or a local area network (LAN) (telephone line formed the wide area network, col. 15 lines 27-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Henneberry in view of Brainard as disclosed by Jones because such a modification represents an improvement over the system of Henneberry by providing along range communication means between the user and the IED device.
Regarding claim 18, Henneberry teaches the sensor includes a first receiver configured to receive the user authentication information and a second receiver configured to receiver the password, and wherein the first receiver accepts data in a different way than the second receiver (card reader, keypad, paragraph 097,0100,0110).
Regarding claims 19-20, Henneberry teaches the use of a card reader as a sensor (access code is obtained from smart card, 0100) and teaches the use of a touch screen as a sensor (paragraph 041,097) but is not explicit in teaching the first sensor is a card reader and the second sensor is a touchscreen or keypad. One skilled in the art recognizes that the use of the card reader as a first sensor and the use of a touchscreen as a second sensor represent the substitution of one form of sensor for another for the reception of the authentication data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the first sensor is a card reader and the second sensor is a touchscreen or keypad because such modification represents the substitution of one form of sensor for another for providing the predictable result of obtaining the authentication data.
Regarding claim 21, Henneberry teaches a method of granting authorized users access to operational features of an intelligent electronic device (IED), the method comprising:
storing a user profile in a database, wherein the user profile includes a user credential and a preferred means of communication (010-011, 041, 087, 0100), Henneberry teaches proving group settings that include communication path and the group settings activated by entering the group credential (paragraph 010,052,084,092,102);
receiving, via a first sensor, user authentication information (keypad, touchscreen, paragraph 097);
verifying, via a control module, the user authentication information, wherein the control module includes a decision circuit configured to compare the user authentication information to the user credential (010,011,0100);
transmitting a password to an external device via a processing module using the preferred means of communication (authentication is also done by external controller, paragraph 087);
receiving, via a user input device, a user-entered password (paragraph 087);
verifying, via the control module, the user-entered password, wherein the decision circuit is configured to compare the user-entered password to the stored password sequence and generate a signal if the user-entered password and the stored sequence match (paragraph 087,0102);
transmitting the signal to a processing module that is configured to administer operational features of the IED (paragraph 099,0111);
wherein the signal enables an input device for a predetermined period of time, the input device is configured to receive an input to grant the authorized user access to the portion of the operational features of the IED for the predetermined period of time (paragraph 025,031-033,099). Henneberry is silent on teaching the generation of a dynamic password. Brainard et al. in an analogous art teaches receiving user authentication information (PIN or password), generating a dynamic password and transmitting the dynamic password to an external device for user authentication (col. 5 line 27-col. 6 line 29). Brainard teaches verifying the authentication information (col. 1 lines 50-64,col. 7 lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Henneberry as disclosed by Brainard because such modification improves the security of the IED device by decreasing the chance that the password can be used by an unauthorized person to gain access.
Regarding claim 22, Henneberry teaches the input device is a touch-screen display (paragraph 041).
Regarding claim 23, Henneberry teaches the IED is selected from the group consisting of an electrical power and/or energy meter, an analyzer of quality of electrical power, an electrical Remote Terminal Unit, an electrical protective relay, an electrical power fault recorder, a Programmable Logic Controller, a water meter, and a gas meter (paragraph 025-026).
Regarding claim 25, Henneberry teaches transmitting via a communication module over a network, and wherein the network is at least one of a WIFI network, a cellular network, a mesh network, a satellite network, a wide area network (WAN), a personal area network (PAN) and/or a local area network (LAN) (telephone line formed the wide area network (paragraph 042) but is silent on teaching transmitting the dynamically generated password over the network. Brainard in an analogous art teaches transmitting the dynamically generated password via a communication module over a network, and wherein the network is at least one of a WIFI network, a cellular network, a mesh network, a satellite network, a wide area network (WAN), a personal area network (PAN) and/or a local area network (LAN) (telephone line formed the wide area network, col. 15 lines 27-38).
Regarding claim 26, Henneberry teaches the sensor includes a first receiver configured to receive the user authentication information and a second receiver configured to receiver the password, and wherein the first receiver accepts data in a different way than the second receiver (card reader, keypad, paragraph 097,0100,0110).
Regarding claims 27-28, Henneberry teaches the use of a card reader as a sensor (access code is obtained from smart card, 0100) and teaches the use of a touch screen as a sensor (paragraph 041,097) but is not explicit in teaching the first sensor is a card reader and the second sensor is a touchscreen or keypad. One skilled in the art recognizes that the use of the card reader as a first sensor and the use of a touchscreen as a second sensor represent the substitution of one form of sensor for another for the reception of the authentication data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the first sensor is a card reader and the second sensor is a touchscreen or keypad because such modification represents the substitution of one form of sensor for another for providing the predictable result of obtaining the authentication data.
Regarding claim 29, Henneberry teaches a method of granting authorized users access to operational features of an intelligent electronic device (IED), the method comprising:
storing a user profile in a database, wherein the user profile includes a user credential and a preferred means of communication (010-011, 041, 087, 0100), Henneberry teaches proving group settings that include communication path and the group settings activated by entering the group credential (paragraph 010,052,084,092,102);
receiving, via a first sensor, user authentication information (keypad, touchscreen, paragraph 097);
verifying the user authentication information by comparing the user authentication information to the user credential (010,011,0100);
transmitting a password to an external device via a processing module using the preferred means of communication (authentication is also perform by the external controller, paragraph 087);
receiving, via a second sensor, a user-entered password in a different manner than the first sensor receives the user authentication information (card reader, keypad, paragraph 097,0100,0110);
verifying the user-entered password by comparing the user-entered password to the stored password and generate a signal if the user-entered password and the password match (099,0111);
transmitting the signal to a processing module that is configured to administer operational features of the IED (099,0111);
wherein the signal enables an input device for a predetermined period of time, the input device is configured to receive an input to grant the authorized user access to the portion of the operational features of the IED for the predetermined period of time (paragraph 025,031-033, 099). Henneberry is silent on teaching the password is a dynamic password. Brainard et al. in an analogous art teaches receiving user authentication information (PIN or password), generating a dynamic password and transmitting the dynamic password to an external device for user authentication (col. 5 line 27-col. 6 line 29). Brainard teaches verifying the authentication information (col. 1 lines 50-64,col. 7 lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Henneberry as disclosed by Brainard because such modification improves the security of the IED device by decreasing the chance that the password can be used by an unauthorized person to gain access.
Regarding claim 30, Henneberry teaches the IED is selected from the group consisting of an electrical power and/or energy meter, an analyzer of quality of electrical power, an electrical Remote Terminal Unit, an electrical protective relay, an electrical power fault recorder, a Programmable Logic Controller, a water meter, and a gas meter (paragraph 025-026).
Regarding claim 31, Henneberry teaches transmitting via a communication module over a network, and wherein the network is at least one of a WIFI network, a cellular network, a mesh network, a satellite network, a wide area network (WAN), a personal area network (PAN) and/or a local area network (LAN) (telephone line formed the wide area network (paragraph 042) but is silent on teaching transmitting the dynamically generated password over the network. Brainard in an analogous art teaches transmitting the dynamically generated password via a communication module over a network, and wherein the network is at least one of a WIFI network, a cellular network, a mesh network, a satellite network, a wide area network (WAN), a personal area network (PAN) and/or a local area network (LAN) (telephone line formed the wide area network, col. 15 lines 27-38).
Regarding claim 32, Henneberry teaches the use of a card reader as a sensor (access code is obtained from smart card, 0100) and teaches the use of a touch screen as a sensor (paragraph 041,097) but is not explicit in teaching the first sensor is a card reader and the second sensor is a touchscreen or keypad. One skilled in the art recognizes that the use of the card reader as a first sensor and the use of a touchscreen as a second sensor represent the substitution of one form of sensor for another for the reception of the authentication data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the first sensor is a card reader and the second sensor is a touchscreen or keypad because such modification represents the substitution of one form of sensor for another for providing the predictable result of obtaining the authentication data.
Claim(s) 16,24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henneberry US Patent Application Publication 20070055889 in view of Brainard et al. US Patent 7363494 and further in view of Jones et al. US Patent Application Publication 20050060110.
Regarding claim 16,24, Henneberry is silent on teaching the preselected mode of communication is at least one of a text message, an email and/or a phone call. Jones in an analogous art teaches an IED device in which the preselected mode of communication is an email (abstract, paragraph 014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Henneberry in view of Brainard as disclosed by Jones because such a modification represents an improvement over the system of Henneberry by providing along range communication means between the user and the IED device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686