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 the Amendment filed on 12/18/2025. In the amendment filed 12/18/2025, claims 1 and 6-7 were amended. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claims 1-7 are pending in this application. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The claim interpretation to claims 1 and 6-7 was withdrawn as per applicant’s amendment on 12/18/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claims 1-7 was withdrawn as per applicant’s amendment on 12/18/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (on pages: 26-27); that the cited prior art Gonzalez fails to explicitly disclose or suggest “measuring temperature of a representative part set in advance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Aguayo Gonzalez teaches measuring side-channel signals using probes including temperature detectors, which corresponds to measuring temperature of a predetermined (i.e. set in advance) part of the system hardware used for detection. Aguayo Gonzalez discloses that “temperature detectors” may be used as probes for side-channel information in the anomaly detection system (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0060]). Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI),the claim language “representative part set in advance” encompasses selecting and configuring a particular part/sensor in advance for measurement, which is exactly what Aguayo Gonzalez teaches by specifying temperature detectors as a probe type used for side-channel fingerprinting (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0060]). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Aguayo Gonzalez does disclose measuring temperature via a predetermined sensor/probe which satisfies the amended “representative part set in advance,” limitation.
Applicant's arguments (page 27): Aguayo Gonzalez fails to explicitly disclose or suggest “correcting a model waveform based on measured temperature and a reference temperature.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Aguayo Gonzalez teaches collecting and learning “normal” side-channel reference information, storing that information as trusted reference fingerprints, and comparing subsequent measurements to trusted references fingerprints to determine whether the current operation is unauthorized/anomalous (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0034]-[0035], [0050]-[0051]). Gonzalez teaches that temperature is among the measured side-channel attributes (via temperature detectors) and is used as part of the information collected for fingerprinting and comparison (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0060]). Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the claimed “correction” of a model waveform based on measured temperature and a reference temperature reads on temperature-conditional reference fingerprints and/or normalization of baseline comparisons using temperature-characterized side-channel references. Aguayo Gonzalez’s trusted reference fingerprints database is created in advance (reference condition) and is compared against later measurements (measured condition); and temperature is explicitly taught as a measured parameter used for fingerprinting (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0034]-[0036], [0050]-[0051], [0060]). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Gonzalez teaches maintaining and applying reference fingerprints that include measured temperature parameters and comparing them to subsequent measurements-i.e. compensating baseline comparison using temperature-conditioned reference data as claimed.
Applicant's arguments (pages 27-28): Aguayo Gonzalez fails to explicitly disclose or suggest “adding up absolute values of differences…and determining whether the sum exceeds a threshold.” Applicant argues that Aguayo Gonzalez does not disclose adding up absolute values of differences and comparing sums to thresholds, but instead uses STFT.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Aguayo Gonzalez expressly teaches combining feature values derived from side-channel observations using a summer (724) to generate a combined (summed/weighted) output and comparing that summed output to a threshold by a detector (725) to determine whether operation is anomalous (See Aguayo Gonzalez [0069]-[0070] & FIG 7A-D). While applicant emphasizes the claim recites “absolute values,” the claim limitation is met by Aguayo Gonzalez’s disclosure of summing computed values indicative of deviation/anomaly and comparing it to a threshold. The claim does not require any specific algorithmic form beyond summing values corresponding to differences and applying a threshold decision (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0069]-[0070]). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Aguayo Gonzalez teaches summing and thresholding feature values (i.e. adding up difference-indicative values and comparing against a threshold), which corresponds to the amended limitation.
Applicant's arguments (pages 28-29): Applicant argues that amended claim 1 now recites that an industrial machine is controlled to stop upon determination unauthorized access. Amended claim 6 recites stopping an operation program and recording a log.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Aguayo Gonzalez teaches that upon detecting unauthorized/anomalous behavior, the system initiates responsive actions including disabling operation (shut down/reset) and reporting/logging actions (See Aguayo Gonzalez, [0021], [0103])
Additionally, as to the dependent claims 2-6 the Applicant argues (Page 29) that the claims are dependent directly or indirectly from a respective one of claims of independent claims 1 and 7 and are therefore distinguished from the cited art at least by virtue OR allowable at least based on of their additionally recited patentable subject matter. The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant.
The Examiner respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-6 are rejected at least based on the rationale and resource presented to the argument for their respective based claims, and the reference applied to the dependent claims 2-6
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejection with the cited prior art references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguayo Gonzalez et al (“Aguayo Gonzalez,” US 20160342791) and further in view of Bathurst et al (“Bathurst,” US 20180270195).
Regarding claim 1, Aguayo Gonzalez discloses a control device capable of controlling an industrial machine and connecting to an external device, the control device comprising:
a memory configured to store a program; (Aguayo Gonzalez discloses a memory [0106] configured to store a program [0102])
and a processor configured to execute the program and control the control device to: (Aguayo Gonzalez discloses and a processor [0106] configured to execute the program [0102] and control the control device to: [0088] )
measure a physical state of at least one electronic component in measurement cycles and measures temperature of a representative part set in advance; (Aguayo Gonzalez describes a measurement unit [0099] configured to measure a physical state [0022] of at least one electronic component [0029] in measurement cycles [0099], [0106], and measures temperature of a representative part set in advance [0022], [0046], [0105])
record physical states of the electronic component during a period of execution of an arbitrary operation program and/or during standby in a normal state in association with the measurement cycles as a model waveform in the memory, and record the temperature of the representative part measured at time of recording the model waveform, as a reference temperature in the memory; (Aguayo Gonzalez describes a recording unit configured to record physical states [0022], [0058] of the electronic component [0029], [0102] during a period of execution of an arbitrary operation program [0102] and/or during standby in a normal state in association with the measurement cycles [0099], [0106], as a model waveform [0027] in the memory [0106], and record the temperature [0022] of the representative part measured at time of recording [0096] the model waveform [0027], as a reference temperature [0053], [0022] in the memory [0106])
correct, during the period of execution of the arbitrary operation program or during the standby, the model waveform of the electronic component recorded in the memory, based on the temperature of the representative part measured and the reference temperature; (Aguayo Gonzalez describes [0050] a correction unit configured to correct [0038], [0050], during the period of execution of the arbitrary operation program [0102] or during the standby, the model waveform [0027] of the electronic component [0029], [0102] recorded in the recording unit, based on the temperature [0022] of the representative part measured by the measurement unit [0099] and the reference temperature [0053], [0022])
add up absolute values of differences between the physical states of the electronic component measured in association with the measurement cycles and physical states of the corrected model waveform, the physical states corresponding to the measurement cycles in which the physical states of the electronic component have been measured, at each regular interval during the period of execution of the arbitrary operation program or during the standby, (Aguayo Gonzalez describes and a detection unit configured to add up absolute values of differences [0069]-[0070], [0079] a summation to add up plus and minus values [absolute values] and a magnitude of differences between the physical states [0022], [0058] of the electronic component measured [0029], [0102] in association with the measurement cycles [0099], [0106] by the measurement unit [0099] and physical states [0022], [0058] of the model waveform [0027] corrected by the correction unit, the physical states [0022], [0058] corresponding to the measurement cycles [0099], [0106], in which the physical states [0022], [0058] of the electronic component [0029], [0102] have been measured [0099], at each regular interval [0026] during the period of execution [0031] of the arbitrary operation program [0102] or during the standby)
wherein the industrial machine is controlled to stop by the control device when the processor determines the unauthorized access and stops the arbitrary operation program, (Aguayo Gonzalez discloses [0023]-[0024] wherein the industrial machine [0102], is controlled to stop by the control device [0103] when the processor [0003] determines the unauthorized access [0091], [0103] and stops the arbitrary operation program [0046], [0048], [0103])
However, in an analogous art, Bathurst discloses and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance in relation to unauthorized access that disturbs operation of the control device or a network by imposing an excessive load on resources, (Bathurst describes [0009]-[0011] and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance in relation to unauthorized access that disturbs operation of the control device [0026] or a network by imposing an excessive load on resources)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bathurst with the method/system of Aguayo Gonzalez to include and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance in relation to unauthorized access that disturbs operation of the control device or a network by imposing an excessive load on resources. One would have been motivated to provide a hardware protection framework for a variety of different applications for protection of a network (Bathurst, [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Aguayo Gonzalez further discloses when the processor makes a determination of the unauthorized access, the processor shuts off at the control device from the network, and records a log to the effect that the unauthorized access has been detected, in the memory, (Aguayo Gonzalez describes [0021] further discloses when the processor [0004] makes a determination of the unauthorized access [0103], the processor [0004] shuts off at the control device from the network [0103], [0016], [0030], [0037] and records a log [0103] to the effect that the unauthorized access has been detected [0103], in the memory [0103], [0098])
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is directed to a method. Claim 7 is similar in cope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguayo Gonzalez et al (“Aguayo Gonzalez,” US 20160342791) in view of Bathurst et al (“Bathurst,” US 20180270195) and further in view of Chanda et al (“Chanda,” US 20170230369).
Regarding claim 2, Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst fail to explicitly disclose wherein the physical state is current consumption of the electronic component.
However, in an analogous art, Chanda discloses wherein the physical state is current consumption of the electronic component (Chanda describes [0063], [0022] wherein the physical state is current consumption of the electronic component)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chanda with the method/system of Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst to include wherein the physical state is current consumption of the electronic component. One would have been motivated to provide authorization for devices to access controlled data, (Chanda, [0001]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguayo Gonzalez et al (“Aguayo Gonzalez,” US 20160342791) in view of Bathurst et al (“Bathurst,” US 20180270195) and further in view of Thubert et al (“Thubert,” US 20220070156).
Regarding claim 3, Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst fail to explicitly disclose wherein the physical state is power consumption of the electronic component.
However, in an analogous art, Thubert discloses wherein the physical state is power consumption of the electronic component, (Thubert describes wherein the physical state [0084] is power consumption [0020] of the electronic component [0049])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thubert with the method/system of Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst to include wherein the physical state is power consumption of the electronic component. One would have been motivated to authenticate one or more devices of a user in association with cloud computing services, (Thubert, [0001]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguayo Gonzalez et al (“Aguayo Gonzalez,” US 20160342791) in view of Bathurst et al (“Bathurst,” US 20180270195) and further in view of Patterson et al (“Patterson,” US 20170176118).
Regarding claim 4, Aguayo Gonzalez discloses the control device according to claim 1.
Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst fail to explicitly disclose wherein the physical state is junction temperature of the electronic component.
However, in an analogous art, Patterson discloses wherein the physical state is junction temperature of the electronic component, (Patterson describes wherein the physical state [0019] is junction temperature [0013] of the electronic component [0021])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patterson with the method/system of Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst to include wherein the physical state is junction temperature of the electronic component. One would have been motivated to manage temperature devices and methods (Patterson, [0011]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguayo Gonzalez et al (“Aguayo Gonzalez,” US 20160342791) in view of Bathurst et al (“Bathurst,” US 20180270195) and further in view of Briant et al (“Briant,” US 20230275897).
Regarding claim 5, Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst fail to explicitly disclose wherein the electronic component includes a processor.
However, in an analogous art, Briant discloses wherein the electronic component includes a processor (Briant describes in [0046] wherein the electronic component includes a processor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Briant with the method/system of Aguayo Gonzalez and Bathurst to include wherein the electronic component includes a processor. One would have been motivated to provide industrial automation services (Briant, [0001]).
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 JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached on (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439