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 06/15/2026. In the amendment, claims 1 and 7 were amended. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claims 1-7 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 with regard to the limitations “and measures temperature of a representative part set in advance; and record the temperature of the representative part measured at time of recording the model waveform, as a reference temperature in the memory; 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; 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; and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval,” 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.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (on pages: 8-9) that Gonzalez does not disclose or suggest “measuring a temperature of a representative part set in advance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Gonzalez discloses collecting physical side-channel information, including temperature, from a target device, comparing newly collected information with previously stored reference information and determining an anomaly based on the comparison. Gonzalez additionally teaches temperature detectors and sensors located at predetermined portions of a target system, including a processor, support chip, or power-management chip, and teaches fixing probes at substantially the same location for repeated measurements in order to reduce measurement variance, (See Gonzalez, [0022], [0060] and [0092]).
Applicant argues (on page: 8) that Gonzalez does not disclose or suggest “correcting the collected side-channel information based on the measured temperature and reference temperature.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Gonzalez teaches compensating reference information for changing operating conditions. Gonzalez explains that a different reference signature may be calibrated for a particular operating condition or that a transformation may be applied to the reference or collected signature to compensate for a changed operating state. Gonzalez also discloses that heating and environmental temperature can alter the monitored signal and affect the false-alarm determination, (See Gonzalez, [0022], [0060] and [0092]).
Applicant argues (on pages: 9-10) that Gonzalez does not disclose or suggest “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; and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Gonzalez discloses repeated collection and reference comparison, averaging to reduce noise, threshold-based anomaly detection, and time-window based processing including a time window for measuring and forgetting events, (See Gonzalez, [0022], [0060] and [0092]).
Applicant argues (on page 10) that Gonzalez does not disclose or suggest “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.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Gonzalez discloses a decision module detects unauthorized execution; its response module performs automatic responses including disabling control ports, rebooting the target, and for unauthorized modification allowing, shutting down, resetting or preventing operation or computation of the affected device, (See Gonzalez, [0037], [0090]-[0091], [0103]).
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejection with cited prior art reference.
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, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al (“Gonzalez,” US 20160342791), Browning et al (“Browning,” US 7,162,384) in view of Levesque et al (“Levesque,” US 4,509,110) and further in view of Letts et al (“Letts,” US 20060212239).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez discloses a control device capable of controlling an industrial machine and connecting to an external device, the control device comprising: (Gonzalez, [0037], [0102]-[0104] describes the PFP system is applicable to SCADA and industrial-control environments, including monitoring an incident command/control system and industrial components. Target devices are physical devices such as switches, valves, pumps and provide response/control actions affecting those devices)
a memory configured to store a program; (Gonzalez, [0113]-[0114] describe processors/CPU and software/computer code with non-transitory computer-readable storage for instructions/code)
and a processor configured to execute the program and control the control device to: (Gonzalez, [0113]-[0114] describe processors/CPU and software/computer code with non-transitory computer-readable storage for instructions/code)
measure a physical state of at least one electronic component in measurement cycles (Gonzalez, [0022], [0061] describes side channel probes capture power consumption, electromagnetic emissions, temperature and other physical signals; the received side-channel information is processed and compared with reference information)
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, (Gonzalez, [0022], [0034], [0051]-[0054] describes normal/reference side channel information is collected or stored and subsequently compared against newly acquired side-channel information. Reference signatures are learned during normal or good operation and describes testing in a known good state to generate reference data)
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; (Gonzalez discloses in [0060] transforming a reference signature or collected signature to compensate for changes in operating conditions)
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; and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval (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, (Gonzalez [0037], [0090]-[0091], [0103] describes a decision module detects unauthorized execution; its response module performs automatic responses including disabling control ports, rebooting the target, and for unauthorized modification allowing, shutting down, resetting or preventing operation or computation of the affected device)
Gonzalez fails to explicitly disclose and measures temperature of a representative part set in advance; and record the temperature of the representative part measured at time of recording the model waveform, as a reference temperature in the memory; 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.
However, in an analogous art, Browning discloses and measures temperature of a representative part set in advance; (Browning, Col. 5, Lines 5-17; FIG 1, sensors 130 describes predetermined temperature sensors monitor the electronic board and eddy-current sensor; the temperatures are supplied to the temperature-compensation module. These are selected, fixed components whose temperatures represent the temperature-dependent signal environment)
and record the temperature of the representative part measured at time of recording the model waveform, as a reference temperature in the memory (Browning, Col. 6, Lines 55-65 to Col. 7, Lines 1-3; Col. 4, Lines 45-51 describe the waveform signal and sensed temperature at the time the waveform is received may be recorded, and standardizing the waveform to a reference temperature)
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; (Browning, Col. 4, Lines 45-51; Col. 5, Lines 18-31; Col. 6, Lines 16-43; Figure 3, steps 335-345 discloses applying a temperature-correction factor to a waveform or waveform parameters to create a normalized/standardized waveform at a reference temperature)
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 Browning with the method/system of Gonzalez to include and measures temperature of a representative part set in advance; 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. One would have been motivated to predictably reduce temperature-induced differences unrelated to authorized activity and thereby improve accuracy of anomaly determination (Browning, Col. 2, Lines 18-67; Col. 5, Lines 18-31; also see Col. 6, Lines 16-55, FIG’s 1 & 3).
Gonzalez and Browning fail to explicitly disclose 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; and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval.
However, in an analogous art, Levesque discloses 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, (Levesque, Col. 3, Lines 43-65 to Col. 4, Lines 1-4; Claim 1 describes a mathematical model predicts the monitored output; the model output is compared to the actual output, generating an error/difference signal; the error passes through an absolute-value function is integrated over time)
and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance (Leveque, Col. 4, Lines 1-4; Claim 1 describes an accumulated error is sent to a judging device, which generates a failure signal when the integral reaches a predetermined threshold value)
with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval (Levesque, Col. 4, Lines 5-13; claim 1 describes resetting the accumulated/integrated error to zero)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Levesque
with the method/system of Gonzalez and Browning to include 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; and determine whether or not an added-up value exceeds a determination threshold set in advance; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval. One would have been motivated to use an accumulated absolute-error technique because it provides a known mechanism for distinguishing persistent deviations from temporary or insignificant deviations, thereby reducing false anomaly determinations while retaining sensitivity to small but sustained abnormal behavior (Levesque, Col. 1, Lines 32-61; Col. 2, Lines 4-19 & 39-66).
Gonzalez, Browning and Levesque fail to explicitly disclose 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; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval
However, in an analogous art, Letts discloses 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, (Letts describes in [0021], [0022], [0036] an acquisition circuit tracks and periodically samples the input signal. Waveform acquisitions are repeated and processed)
with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval (Letts, [0044] describes a temporal implementation where counters may be reset to zero after each waveform, after a specified time has elapsed, or after a specified number of waveforms)
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 Letts with the method/system of Gonzalez, Browning and Levesque to include 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; with the prevention of erroneous determination due to addition of minute errors by resetting the added-up value to zero at each regular interval. One would have been motivated to use time or waveform based resets as a technique for limiting the contribution of noise to an anomaly determination and to predictably prevent residual errors from one measurement interval from being indefinitely carried into later intervals (Letts, [0021], [0043]-[0044], also see [0046]-[0050], FIG 10).
Regarding claim 3, Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Gonzalez further discloses wherein the physical state is power consumption of the electronic component, (Gonzalez in [0022], FIG 1 describe collecting side-channel information from a target electronic device including physical signals indicative of power consumption and using the collected side-channel information for comparison with stored reference information; also see [0034]-[0035], [0051]-[0054])
Regarding claim 6, Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts disclose the control device according to claim 1.
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, (Gonzalez in [0090]-[0092] describes a decision module that distinguishes authorized execution from anomalous/unauthorized execution; [0037], [0103] describe response actions include disabling control ports, disabling/reinitializing the target device, and shutting down/resetting/preventing operation of an affected device; [0103] describes responses include warning, logging and reporting the event; [0113]-[0114] describe a processor, software and storage framework)
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 Gonzalez et al (“Gonzalez,” US 20160342791), Browning et al (“Browning,” US 7,162,384), Levesque et al (“Levesque,” US 4,509,110) in view of Letts et al (“Letts,” US 20060212239) and further in view of Chanda et al (“Chanda,” US 20170230369).
Regarding claim 2, Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts disclose 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 in [0062] & FIG 6 describes electronic device 652 includes microprocessor 602, memory, communications circuitry, power system 622; [0063] & FIG 6 describes battery-monitoring circuitry provides status information concerning operating characteristic and identifies electrical current consumption and the microprocessor 602 controls the electronic device and interacts with the device systems)
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 Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts to include wherein the physical state is current consumption of the electronic component. One would have been motivated to use current consumption as monitored physical state because current consumption is an electrical operating parameter indicative of the activity of the monitored electronics, (Chanda, [0062]-[0063], and FIG 6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al (“Gonzalez,” US 20160342791), Browning et al (“Browning,” US 7,162,384), Levesque et al (“Levesque,” US 4,509,110) in view of Letts et al (“Letts,” US 20060212239) and further in view of Patterson et al (“Patterson,” US 20170176118).
Regarding claim 4, Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts 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 in [0013] describes that that component temperature is specified as either case temperature or junction temperature and identifies nominal junction temperatures in the 70 degree Celsius to 85 degree Celsius range; [0024], FIG 2 discloses that temperature is monitored using a temperature sensor, such as a silicon bandgap temperature sensor
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 Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts to include wherein the physical state is junction temperature of the electronic component. One would have been motivated to predictably select a known temperature parameter for accessing the thermal condition of the electronic component (Patterson, [0002], [0013]-[0014] & [0024]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al (“Gonzalez,” US 20160342791), Browning et al (“Browning,” US 7,162,384), Levesque et al (“Levesque,” US 4,509,110) in view of Letts et al (“Letts,” US 20060212239) and further in view of Briant et al (“Briant,” US 20230275897).
Regarding claim 5, Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts disclose the control device according to claim 1.
Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts 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 discloses in [0051] & [0218] that industrial control and automation systems can include computers and other electronic/network components, wherein the computers and servers include one or more processors configured to execute instructions; [0228], FIG 37 describes a computing device includes a processing unit 3704 which may comprise one or more processors
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 Gonzalez, Browning, Levesque and Letts to include wherein the electronic component includes a processor. One would have been motivated to provide processors which are conventionally used in industrial control and automation equipment to execute instructions and perform control and communication functions (Briant, [0218]).
Conclusion
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights