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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 01/28/2026. Claims 1, 4, 11, 13 have been amended. Claims 14-15 have been cancelled. Claims 16-22 are added. Therefore, claims 1-13, 16-22 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: (a data processing system configured to verify…; wherein the AP is further configured to receive…; retrieve…; compare…; produce…) in claims 11, 16-22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (CN112688782) (from Applicant’s IDS) in view of Robison et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0037060) and in further view of Krishnaswamy (Pub. No. US 2019/0379754).
As per claims 1, 11, Hu discloses an attestation method/ a data processing system configured to/ for verifying the integrity of an attester device (…see par. 96, 99, fig.2, 5) by an attestation proxy (AP) (…assuming that the Atester is a combined device…the process of the Verifier remotely attesting the Atester may include: the Verifier initiates a remote attestation request message (also called initiating an attestation challenge) to the Atester, and the remote attestation request message is used to trigger a remote attestation of the Atester; the Atester carries the measurement information of all units in a remote attestation response message and sends it to the Verifier, wherein the standby main unit and each subunit... send their measurement information to the active main unit, and the active main unit carries the received measurement information and its own measurement information in the remote attestation response message and sends it to the Verifier through the communication interface on the active main unit…the Verifier obtains the measurement information of the activated main unit, the standby main unit and each sub-unit... from the received remote attestation response message, and verifies the measurement information provided by Attester based on the PCR reference value or baseline value of each unit of Attester stored thereon, and obtains the verification result of each unit; Verifier determines the verification result of the system credibility of Attester based on the verification result of each unit…see par. 91, 96, 99, fig.2, 5) which is a node of a distributed ledger (DL) network and which is running on a device local to the attester device but separate from the attester device; the attestation method comprising the AP: sending a trusted platform module (TPM) quote request message (…the main unit 311 sends a measurement request message 2 to the main unit 312, subunits 321, 322, ... respectively, for respectively requesting the measurement information of the main unit 312, subunits 321, 322…see par. 99, fig.5) directly to a virtual TPM (vTPM) uniquely associated with the attester device (Virtual Trusted Platform Module (vTPM), par. 137), to prompt the vTPM to: produce a set of platform configuration register (PCR) values based on measurements requested and received by the vTPM directly from the attester device (see PCR value 1, the PCR value 1 recorded in the TCB module…the measurement information may also include a measurement log, which records the baseline value a and the process information of obtaining the PCR value 1 by expanding the baseline value a…the main unit, the sub-units ... respectively carry their measurement information in the measurement response message and send it to the main unit, the main unit performs trustworthy verification on the main unit, the sub-units ... respectively, and obtains the verification result 1…see par. 99), then send a TPM quote comprising the set of PCR values directly to the AP (the main unit, the sub-units…carry their measurement information in the measurement response message and set it to the main unit…see par. 99, fig.5); the attestation method further comprising the AP: receiving the TPM quote (…measurement information, par. 99); retrieving, from a local copy of the DL stored on the AP, a latest set of PCR values recorded for the attester device (see PCR reference value 1, par. 99, fig.5); comparing that set of PCR values retrieved from the local copy of the DL with the set of PCR values received in the TPM quote to generate a local attestation indicator, wherein the local attestation indicator is negative when the set of PCR values retrieved from the local copy of the DL does not match the set of PCR values received in the TPM quote; and producing an attestation result based on the local attestation indicator, wherein the attestation result is negative when the local attestation indicator is negative (see PCR value 1, the PCR value 1 recorded in the TCB module…the measurement information may also include a measurement log, which records the baseline value a and the process information of obtaining the PCR value 1 by expanding the baseline value a…the main unit, the sub-units ... respectively carry their measurement information in the measurement response message and send it to the main unit, the main unit performs trustworthy verification on the main unit, the sub-units ... respectively, and obtains the verification result 1…for a determined measurement process, the main unit compares the PCR value 1 of each unit with the PCR Whether the reference value 1 is consistent; in another case, for the measurement process that cannot be determined, the main unit first calculates the PCR value 2 based on the measurement log, that is, by calculating the PCR value 2 for the baseline value a according to the process information recorded in the measurement log, and compares whether the PCR value 1 and the PCR value 2 are consistent, and compares whether the baseline value a and the baseline value A in the measurement log are consistent; the main unit carries the verification result 1 in the measurement response message 1 and sends it to the Verifier, wherein the measurement response message 1 can be regarded as a "response" to the "challenge" when remote attestation is performed in a challenge-response manner…see par. 99). Hu does not explicitly disclose an attestation proxy (AP) is a node of a distributed ledger (DL) network; a set of PCR values recorded for the attester device is retrieved from a local copy of the DL. However Robison discloses an attestation proxy (AP) is a node of a distributed ledger (DL) network; a set of PCR values recorded for the attester device is retrieved from a local copy of the DL (…a distributed ledger is a database that is distributed or shared across several nodes on a peer to peer network…at least a portion of the client information may be appended to the distributed ledger stored within each of the policy information points…examples of client information includes Trusted Platform Module Platform Configuration Register (PCR) values…see par. 33-34, 36). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Robison in Hu for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve secure access to network nodes…see Robison, par. 3. The combination of Hu and Robison does not explicitly disclose an attester device…which is running on a device local to the attester device but separate from the attester device; and a local copy of DL stored on the AP. However Krishnaswamy discloses an attester device… which is running on a device local to the attester device but separate from the attester device (…at each node in the blockchain network, proxy smart contract agents corresponding to other node(s) are deployed at proxy node agents which are collocated with a particular node and/or are located in close proximity to certain nodes…see par. 31-33); and a local copy of DL stored on the AP (…identifying a blockchain transaction requiring endorsement by blockchain nodes, receiving endorsements at one blockchain node from proxy objects associated with one or more of the other blockchain nodes, determining to commit the blockchain transaction, storing the committed blockchain transaction in a ledger maintained by the one blockchain node…see par. 36, 58). Therefore one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Krishnaswamy in the combination of Hu and Robison for including the above limitations because one ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would further improve the throughput performance of the permissioned blockchain system…see Krishnaswamy, par. 4-5.
As per claims 2, 16, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses the AP: obtaining an indication that a user wishes the attester device to join a network in which the AP is comprised, the step of sending the TPM quote request message being responsive thereto; and determining whether to validate the attester device for joining the network in dependence on the attestation result, wherein the AP prevents the attester device from joining the network when the attestation result is negative (Hu: see par. 141-148).
As per claims 3, 17, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the TPM quote request message prompts the vTPM to cryptographically sign the TPM quote; the attestation method further comprising the AP verifying the vTPM’s signature of the TPM quote before producing the attestation result, wherein the attestation result is negative when verification of the vTPM’s signature of the TPM quote fails (Hu: see par. 113, 118).
As per claims 5, 19, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses the AP: constructing the TPM quote request message to comprise a local attestation nonce, wherein the TPM quote request message prompts the vTPM to construct the TPM quote to comprise that local attestation nonce; and checking whether the local attestation nonce received in the TPM quote matches the local attestation nonce sent in the TPM quote request message, wherein the attestation result is negative if it does not (Hu: see par. 113, 118).
As per claim 6, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses the AP submitting a record of the attestation result to the DL for storage (Krishnaswamy: see par. 32). The motivation for claim 6 is the same motivation as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 7, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses the AP retrieving the attester device’s network access requirements from the local copy of the DL; wherein the attestation result is produced based on said network access requirements (Krishnaswamy: see par. 58-59). The motivation for claim 7 is the same motivation as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 8, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the AP is a movable network element which resides on a network- attached device, the attestation method further comprising: determining that performance of the network-attached device on which the AP resides does not satisfy an AP performance criterion; and responsive thereto, initiating transfer of the AP to an alternative network-attached device (Hu: see par. 105-106, 137).
As per claim 9, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the vTPM is a movable network element which resides on a network- attached device, the attestation method further comprising: determining that performance of the network-attached device on which the vTPM resides does not satisfy a VTPM performance criterion; and responsive thereto, initiating transfer of the vTPM to an alternative network-attached device (Hu: see par. 105-106, 137).
As per claim 10, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses the AP, prior to producing the attestation result: sending the TPM quote to a remote relying party (RP) to prompt the RP to verify the TPM quote is as expected then return a remote attestation indicator to the AP; and receiving the remote attestation indicator; wherein the attestation result is negative when the remote attestation indicator is negative (Hu: see par. 84-85, 105-106).
As per claim 11, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses a data processing system configured to perform the attestation method of claim 1 (claim 11 is rejected under the same basis of rejection as in claim 1 above).
As per claim 12, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses a network gateway device comprising the data processing system of claim 11 (claim 11 is rejected under the same basis of rejection as in claims 1, 11 above).
As per claim 13, the combination of Hu, Robison and Krishnaswamy discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (claim 13 is rejected under the same basis of rejection as in claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to attesting to the integrity of devices.
Cusden et al (Pub. No. US 2017/0344988); “System and Method for Facilitating Blockchain-Based Validation”;
-Teaches a smart contract is configured to automatically validate one or more transactions by using one or more public keys of public/private key pairs to ensure that the transactions are respectively signed using the corresponding private keys…see par. 4.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499