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 filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicants argument regarding Atta et al that “The Applicant submits that the Office Action commits a logical fallacy of false analogy by analogizing including a function to enabling that function”. MPEP 2121 1 PRIOR ART IS PRESUMED TO BE OPERABLE/ENABLING. Atta et al expressly states Abstract “The configuration data can include data for implementing the application logic”. The word implementing is defined as “the act of putting a plan, policy, system, or decision into effect, action, or practice. It means carrying out actions to achieve a specific, practical goal, often involving concrete measures to turn plans into reality” This means that there can be data in the configuration data for the act of putting a policy (the configuration data) into reality. Atta et al also expressly states ([0081] “The specification for the application logic can include source code (e.g., HDL or RTL source code), a netlist, and/or configuration data corresponding to the application logic”).
In regards to applicants argument that “distributing a license configuration file is not the same as utilizing the received configuration file to enable operation of the computer device”. While Atta et al alone teaches the limitation of “an application requiring a configuration file for enabling operation of the computer device” The application operating the computer device. The applicants are however arguing that the application is “enabling operation of the computer device” The examiner is therefore citing multiple references where an application enables a particular operation of a computer device. Feagans PN 6,366297 teaches (“FIG. 1 shows a first application screen 20 and a second application screen 40 for displaying information relating to the corresponding first and second applications that may operate on the computer. In a preferred embodiment, the first application 30 is a terminal application for enabling the computer to operate in terminal mode”). Silvester PN 2003/0126335 teaches ([0023] “The non-volatile memory of core memory 210 stores the mini operating system and application software that enables core computer 101 to operate in its independent, undocked mode”). Yang PN 2005/0005201 teaches (Abstract “execute an application specific to the second operation mode, and subsequently enables the computer system to operate in the second operation mode”). Richardson et al PN 2013/0093830 teaches ([0080] “The ACD system 602 may be embodied as a computer operating a computer telephony integration (CTI) which is an application that enables the computer to operate as a call center”). Yembari et al PN 11,880,753 teaches executing multiple different types of applications including unspecified how the computer device operates stating (Column 1 line 18 et seq. “From applications that enable the operation of the computer to applications that render real-time communications to custom applications for specialized business tasks”).
In regards to applicants argument that Burnham discloses “the secure medium is between a software server and an end user. This is not the same as the system configuration manager component and a device. An end user is not a device” The end user has a device to which the software is downloaded. The software is not being downloaded into the end users brain. It is clear that Burnhams secure medium is between a software server and the end users device.
In regards to applicants argument that Biear is silent regarding a cyphered configuration file. The examiner agrees. Atta et al teaches a cyphered configuration files. Biear was cited for teaching “executing the at least one application in the computer device utilizing the received” “configuration file”. The examiner however notes the applicants argument of enabling operation of the computer device changes the reference to be used for this limitation. The configuration being cyphered is taught by Atta et al.
In regards to applicants argument that Yi et al does not teach "receive, from a system configuration manager component, the ciphered configuration file". Atta et al teaches receive, from a system configuration manager component, the ciphered configuration file. The claim language states “the ciphered configuration file is the configuration file that is ciphered for security”. Atta et al is silent upon the purpose the configuration file is cyphered. Cyphering is not only for security. Other known purposes of cyphering are data integrity (ensuring information hasn't been altered such as due to a transmission error), and data compression or transmission encoding. Yi et al was cited for teaching the claimed a purpose if cyphering is for security.
In regards to applicants argument that Walker et al does not teach “upon initiation of the computer device, provide a call to the system configuration manager component requesting the ciphered configuration file”. Walker et al expressly reaches ([0009] “Upon startup of a workstation, an application executing on the workstation may automatically transmit a request to the configuration server to load the configurations (i.e., download the configuration files) for that workstation”). This is upon initiation (startup) of the computer device (workstation), provide a call (request) to the system configuration manager component (configuration server) requesting the configuration file. Atta et al teaches the configuration file being cyphered.
In regards to applicants argument that “Simulation is to create a virtual model of a system that mimics the actual machine. It does not actually execute a program. Accordingly, it is not the same as a software module”. A virtual model that mimics an actual machine is by definition a software otherwise it would be hardware and not a “mimic of an actual machine”.
In regards to applicants argument that vines et al does not teach “to message the at least one application executing on the device indicating an updated ciphered configuration file has been received causing the at least one application to request and then initiate execution of the updated ciphered file for continued operation thereof” Vines et al teaches (Column 3 line 61 et. seq. “The DMM configurator process 190 conveys configuration information to the DMM monitoring and executive software on the process control application workstation 132 by writing the new or updated configuration file 240 to a specific directory on the process control application workstation 132 using the Net FoxAPI 134. The DMM executive process 136 polls periodically for an updated configuration file 240, then notifies the monitoring processes 140. The monitoring processes 140 then read the new configuration file 240”). This is receiving a new configuration file (conveys then writing) then messaging (notifying) the process monitoring the executing software. Then reading the configuration file. While Vines et al only expressly teaches reading the new configuration file instead of executing/using the new configuration file. Atta et al teaches the [0016] “configuration data that can be used to configure configurable resources”, thus teaching executing the downloaded configuration data.
In regards to the newly added claim language “transmitting, from the system configuration manager component, an updated ciphered configuration file to the device configuration manager while the at least one application is executing in the computer device”. Atta et al teaches transmitting from the configuration manager component an updated cyphered configuration file to the device. Atta et al however never mentions receiving the configuration file “while the at least one application is executing” This is known in the art as dynamic configuring. Multiple references are being cited teaching this limitation such as Pombo et al PN 2004/0054569 that teaches [0134] “According to some embodiments of the present invention, the configuration management component 84 is required to dynamically configure applications at runtime. An example of this is an application loading database connection parameters during startup of the computing system 10. These configurable parameters are typically stored in configuration files or a database and can be managed through a user interface. More advanced configuration management schemes may use expiry timeouts (through polling) and update events to allow for "hot" updates of configuration parameters in applications without the need for restarts”. Shah et al ([0039] “In one embodiment, the contents of the configuration files may be updated during runtime--i.e., while the executor is executing. For example, the configuration file may be updated via live user intervention through a user interface, scripted or programmed intervention through a programmatic interface, a request to update configuration information sent from the root executor to, for example, a second-level or other subordinate executor, etc.”.). Channing et al PN 2012/0078865 ([0021] “Embodiments facilitate the dynamic reconfiguration of a persistence provider at runtime (prompted by changes to underlying configuration data (e.g., metadata)) without requiring a restart of the application” Abstract “Provided are techniques for updating a physical data structure type. A persistence provider is updated with dynamic configuration data for the updated physical data structure type while an application is executing. The application that is executing is allowed to access the updated physical data structure type using the updated persistence provider to map an application level object type to the updated physical data structure type without restarting the application”).
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) 1-5, 12-15, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atta et al PN 2022/0060454 in view of Burnham et al PN 6,301,695, Yembari et al PN 11,880,753, Yi et al PN 2014/0169320, and Shah et al PN 2006/0195725.
In regards to claims 1, 12, 21: Atta et al teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a ciphered configuration file (signed and encrypted configuration data 162) to a computer device (server 140) having at least one application (application logic 132) requiring a configuration file for enabling operation of the computer device (the configuration file is "so that it performs" thus it is required [0021] "configure the configurable hardware 142 so that it performs the functions specified by the application logic 132 and the host logic 134") comprising the steps: requesting, from a device configuration manager in a computer device (Abstract "The method can include transmitting the signed encrypted configuration data in response to the request”. [0028] “The logic repository service 110 can receive an API request 160 to retrieve configuration data and signed and encrypted configuration data 162 can be returned in response to the request 160"), a ciphered configuration file (signed and encrypted configuration data), Atta et al teaches receiving, from a system configuration manager component (logic repository service 110), a ciphered configuration file to the computer device (signed and encrypted configuration data 162), wherein the system configuration manager component (logic repository 110) is coupled to the device via a communication network ([0002] "Cloud computing is the use of computing resources (hardware and software) which are available in a remote location and accessible over a network"); pushing, upon reception of the ciphered configuration file in the computer device, the received ciphered configuration to the at least one application in the computer device (crypto engine 146 is responsible for authenticating and decrypting the received configuration data prior to providing it to the configurable hardware. [0020] "The cryptographic engine 146 can be used to authenticate a cryptographic digital signature and/or to decrypt encrypted information (such as encrypted configuration data)". ([0021] "the generated configuration data 136 can include information that can be used to program or configure the configurable hardware 142"); and executing the at least one application in the computer device utilizing the received ciphered configuration file ([0021] "configure the configurable hardware 142 so that it performs the functions specified by the application logic 132 and the host logic 134"). While the sending of signed and encrypted configuration data implies a secure network, Atta et al does not expressly state the network is a secure network. Burnham et al teaches (Column 4 line 53 et seq. "In some embodiments, macro manager 430 is a software server, which can be accessed by end user 440 by way of a secure medium such as a private network, telephone connection, or an encrypted channel of a public network. For example, in one embodiment macro manager 430 is a web server that receives encrypted configuration files from end user 440 over the internet and sends configuration data over the internet to end user 440. In one embodiment, macro manager 430 is implemented using the Java. TM. environment. ("Java" is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ")"). It would have been obvious to send the configuration over a secure network because this would have prevented malicious actions. Atta et al teaches Abstract. "The configuration data can include data for implementing the application logic". This is enabling the computer device to implement the application logic. However Atta et al does not expressly teach and application that requires a configuration file enabling the computer device only that a configuration file can be on for the application. Yembari et al teaches (Column 1 line 18 et seq. “From applications that enable the operation of the computer to applications that render real-time communications to custom applications for specialized business tasks”). It would have been obvious to use the application that has a configuration file to enable operation of the computer device because this this is a function of software. Atta et al also teaches [0029] "If any of the validation checks fail, the logic repository service 110 can deny the request to retrieve the signed and encrypted configuration data 162. Thus, the logic repository service 110 can potentially safeguard the security and the availability of the computing resources 120 while enabling a user to customize hardware of the computing resources 120". A purpose of cyphering is for security however Atta et al is not expressly using the words "cyphered for security". Yi et al PN 2014/0169320 is being cited that teaches [0047] "The Cyphering which keeps data security is provided to both SRB and D RB". It would have been obvious to cypher for security because this is the purpose of cyphering. Atta et al also teaches transmitting from the configuration manager component an updated cyphered configuration file to the device. Atta et al however never mentions receiving the configuration file “while the at least one application is executing”. Shah et al ([0039] “In one embodiment, the contents of the configuration files may be updated during runtime--i.e., while the executor is executing. For example, the configuration file may be updated via live user intervention through a user interface, scripted or programmed intervention through a programmatic interface, a request to update configuration information sent from the root executor to, for example, a second-level or other subordinate executor, etc.”.). It would have been obvious to update the configuration at runtime while the application is executing because this would have prevented having to stop the application to change configuration.
In regards to claims 2, 13, 22: Atta et al teaches programmable logic ([0019] "that can be a controller").
In regards to claims 3, 23: Atta et al teaches plural computer devices (figure 4) 402A,B,C). each having a configuration manager component (408A,B,C).
In regards to claims 4, 14, 24: Atta et al teaches ([0027] "Examples of symmetric cryptographic algorithms include Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)"), AES is a standard that includes cryptographic primitives for identifying the cryptographic protocol.
In regards to claims 5, 15, 25: Atta et al teaches all of ([0042] "An asymmetric cryptography algorithm") ([0027] "RSA") ([0042] "public key" encryption) ([0027] "elliptic curve cryptography.") and ([0043] "Signing a file can include applying a cryptographic hash function to the file to create a hash value or digest. As one example, the cryptographic hash function can include a block cipher, such as the advanced encryption standard (AES)").
Claim(s) 6, 8-20, 26, 26, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atta et al PN 2022/0060454 in view of Burnham et al PN 6,301,695, Yembari et al PN 11,880,753, Yi et al PN 2014/0169320, and Shah et al PN 2006/0195725 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Walker et al PN 2009/0282133.
In regards to claims 6, 16: Atta et al teaches the configuration file is sent to the receiving computer. Atta et al also teaches a call/request for the configuration file, however not necessarily "upon initialization of the computer device" Walker also teaches the claimed "upon initialization of the computer device" performing the requesting. Abstract: ("Upon startup of a workstation, an application executing on the workstation may automatically transmit a request to the configuration server to load the configurations for that workstation"). It would have been obvious to request/retrieve the configuration file upon initialization/startup of because this would have prevented retrieving a configuration file before it is required.
In regards to claims 8, 28: Both Atta et al and Walker et al teaches storage designed to store the configuration file(s) "logic repository database 250".
In regards to claims 9, 26, 29: Atta et al teaches ([0020] "In particular, the configurable hardware 142 can include static logic that is loaded during a power-on or initialization sequence of the configurable hardware 142. Specifically, configuration data corresponding to the static logic can be stored in a memory (such as a flash memory) that is used to program the configurable hardware 142 with the static logic during the initialization sequence. The static logic can include all or a portion of the cryptographic engine 146. As another example, the cryptographic engine 146 can include hardware and software executing on the server computer 140.").
In regards to claim 10: Both Atta et al and Walker et al teaches storage designed to store the configuration file(s) "logic repository database 250".
Claim(s) 7, 17-19, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atta et al PN 2022/0060454 in view of Burnham et al PN 6,301,695, Yembari et al PN 11,880,753, Yi et al PN 2014/0169320, Shah et al PN 2006/0195725 and Walker et al PN 2009/0282133 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of view of Structured computer Organization third edition by Andrew S/ Tancnbaum herein after Tancnbaum.
In regards to claims 7, 17, 27: Walker et al teaches the configuration manager is a server which inherently would be running a program to perform the its functions. However Walker et al does not expressly teach a software module performing the functions. It is theoretically possible the configuration server performs all the functions in hardware. Tancnbaum teaches ("Hardware and software are logically equivalent" Any operation performed by software can also be built directly into the hardware and any instruction executed by the hardware can also be simulated in software. The decision to put certain functions in hardware and others- in software is based on such factors as cost. speed, reliability, and frequency of expected changes"). It would have been obvious to perform all the function by respective software modules because software is easier to modify than hardware.
In regards to claim 18: Both Atta et al and Walker et al teaches storage designed to store the configuration file(s) "logic repository database 250".
In regards to claim 19: Atta et al teaches ([0020] "In particular, the configurable hardware 142 can include static logic that is loaded during a power-on or initialization sequence of the configurable hardware 142. Specifically, configuration data corresponding to the static logic can be stored in a memory (such as a flash memory) that is used to program the configurable hardware 142 with the static logic during the initialization sequence. The static logic can include all or a portion of the cryptographic engine 146. As another example, the cryptographic engine 146 can include hardware and software executing on the server computer 140.").
Claim(s) 11, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atta et al PN 2022/0060454 in view of Burnham et al PN 6,301,695, Yembari et al PN 11,880,753, Yi et al PN 2014/0169320, Shah et al PN 2006/0195725 and Walker et al PN 2009/0282133 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Vines PN 6,006,171.
In regards to claims 11, 30-31: Walker teaches updating the configuration file. Walker however docs not teach messaging/notifying the application about the updated configuration file or transmitting the updater configuration file to the application. Vines et al teaches (Column 3 line 61 et seq. "The DMM configurator process 190 conveys configuration information to the DMM monitoring and executive software on the process control application workstation 132 by writing the new or updated configuration file 240 to a specific directory on the process control application workstation 132 using the Net FoxAPI 134. The DMM executive process 136 polls periodically for an updated configuration file 240, then notifies the monitoring processes 140. The monitoring processes 140 then read the new configuration file 240") Atta et al expressly uses the configuration data. [0012] "Configurable logic is hardware that can be programmed or configured to perform a logic function that is specified by configuration data that is applied to the configurable logic". It would have been obvious to notify the application of an updated configuration because this would have allowed the application to use the updated configuration.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atta et al PN 2022/0060454 in view of Burnham et al PN 6,301,695, Yembari et al PN 11,880,753, Yi et al PN 2014/0169320, Shah et al PN 2006/0195725, Walker et al PN 2009/0282133 and Tanenbaum as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Vines PN 6,006,171.
In regards to claim 20: Atta et al and Walker teaches updating the configuration file. Walker however does not teach messaging/notifying the application about the updated configuration file. Vines et al teaches (Column 3 line 61 et seq. "The DMM configurator process 190 conveys configuration information to the DMM monitoring and executive software on the process control application workstation 132 by writing the new or updated configuration file 240 to a specific directory on the process control application workstation 132 using the Net FoxAPI 134. The DMM executive process 136 polls periodically for an updated configuration file 240, then notifies the monitoring processes 140. The monitoring processes 140 then read the new configuration file 240"). It would have been obvious to notify the application of an updated configuration because this would have allowed the application to use the updated configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record 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 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