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
1. The office acknowledges the receipt of the following and placed of record in the file: Amendment date 4/30/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over; the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 Fo3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887,225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937,214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms, which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.isp.
3. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U. S. Patent No. 12,032700.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is substantially similar in nature with the Claim limitations of the patent for example
Instant application
Patent 12,032700
1.A removable boot drive (RBD) system comprising:
an embedded-RBD host device;
a mount opening, located on the embedded-RBD host device, comprising:
an electrical connection;
a clip or lock;
A removable boot drive (RBD) system comprising:
an embedded-RBD host device;
a mount opening, located on the
embedded-RBD host device, comprising:
an electrical connection;
a clip or lock;
an embedded-RBD plug-in device, which can be attached to the mount opening, the embedded-RBD plug-in device comprising:
a tab finger well, wherein a bottom portion of the tab finger well comprises a portion of a top surface of an RBD housing, and wherein the tab finger well comprises a wall surrounding a tab handle which facilitates using a finger to lift the tab handle from a vertical configuration to a horizontal configuration;
an embedded-RBD plug-in device, which can be attached to the mount opening, the embedded-RBD plug-in device comprising:
an RBD housing, the RBD housing comprising a planar top surface and a planar bottom surface;
a tab handle coupled to the planar top surface of the RBD housing;
a tab finger well, wherein a bottom portion of the tab finger well comprises a portion of the planar top surface of the RBD housing, and wherein the tab finger well comprises a wall surrounding the tab handle which facilitates using a finger to lift the tab handle from a horizontal configuration to a vertical configuration;
a boot drive.
a boot drive;
memory-storage.
a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device, wherein the memory card includes authentication information for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device, wherein securely accessing the operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data using the memory card
It can clearly be seen from the comparison table except the missing limitations of a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device, wherein the memory card includes authentication information for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device, wherein securely accessing the operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data using the memory card
However, the analogous art Laputz teaches a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device, wherein the memory card includes authentication information for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device, wherein securely accessing the operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data using the memory card [Para: 0013, 0015 and 0035; Fig-1-2]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant(s) invention was made to modify the copending application by including the idea of
a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data using the memory card and memory card includes authentication information for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting for the advantage of keeping authenticity of the operating system and boot data of the removable boot drive [Para: 0013].
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray John Ellis (“Ellis”), U.S. Patent Publication No.2017/0300340 and Laputz et al. (“Laputz”), U.S. Patent5 Publication No. 2014/0256419.
Regarding Claim 1, Ellis teaches a removable boot drive (RBD) [404, 1104 or 12104] system comprising:
an embedded-RBD host device [Para: 0003(small form factor (SSF) device as laptop and also see Fig-5A)];
a mount opening (118), located on the embedded-RBD host device [Para: 0098(“RBD 404 has a size and/or shape so that it can be received by the opening 418 of the SFF device 402”)], comprising:
an electrical connection [Para: 0117(“back plate 528 is made of metal or other conductive material to support an electrical connection for a removable disk inserted in the RBD enclosure 506,”)];
a clip or lock [Para: 0145(“locking mechanism 12195 of the RBD 12104, which has two latches corresponding to the notches of the ejection mechanism 12106, each latch fitting into a corresponding notch to securely position the RBD 12104”)];
an embedded-RBD plug-in device, which can be attached to the mount opening, the embedded-RBD plug-in device [Para: 0003(“RBD may comprise an SFF RBD that is configured to be inserted into an RBD enclosure created for an SFF laptop”) and Fiig-4,5 and 1] comprising:
a tab finger well (finger grip 1190), wherein a bottom portion of the tab finger well comprises a portion of a top surface of an RBD housing (as finger grip 1190 sits on top of RBD 1104), and wherein the tab finger well comprises a wall surrounding a tab handle which facilitates using a finger to lift the tab handle from a vertical configuration to a horizontal configuration [Para: 0135(as “finger grip 1190 may be designed for flip up handle to grab for inserting or removing the RBD 1104” suggests lifting finger grip from horizontal position to vertical position)];
a boot drive [Abstract and Para: 0003(“removable bootable drives (RBD(s)) are disclosed”)].
Ellis does not disclose expressly “a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device, wherein the memory card includes authentication information for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device, wherein securely accessing the operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data using the memory card”.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., authenticating multi-tiered static chain of trust for boot device), Laputz teaches a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device [Para: 0015(memory stored “a first authentication program 30 is stored within a removable ROM chip 22); Fig-1-2],
wherein the memory card includes authentication information (authentication 30) for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device [Para: 0015(“first authentication program is stored within a removable ROM chip and is executed to verify the authenticity of the boot code and the operating system which is stored on a writable boot chip”)],
wherein securely accessing the operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data using the memory card [Para: 0013 and 0035(“authentication programs 30 and 32 verify data sets is … An authentication program 64 representative of the authentication programs 30 and 32 contains a hash function 66, a decryption function 68 … authentication program 64 uses the decryption function 68 in conjunction with a public key 76 to create a decrypted …”)].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ellis’s teachings of accessing operating system data in embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting, and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device for booting with Laputz’s teachings of an embedded-RBD plug-in device includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data which will allow Ellis to keep authenticity of the operating system and boot data of the removable boot drive [Para: 0013].
Regarding Claim 2, Ellis teaches wherein the mount opening is located on a side of the embedded-RBD host device [Fig-4(opening 418 on side of SSF device 402)].
Regarding Claims 4, 17 and 18, Ellis teaches a biometric-data sensor configured to provide an authorization input [Para: 0100(“biometric authentication” includes finger prints)].
Regarding Claim 6, Ellis teaches wherein the mount opening further comprises a lid [Para: 0125 (lid 1128)].
Regarding Claim 7, Ellis teaches wherein the tab handle is configured for extracting the embedded-RBD plug-in device from the mount opening [Fig-4(RBD 404 inserted into and removed from enclosure 406 by an user (hand) and Fig-11B(by finger grip 1190), and the embedded-RBD plug-in device can be removed without removing a battery [Fig-11B].
Regarding Claim 8, Ellis teaches wherein the embedded-RBD plug-in device further comprises a solid state drive (SSD) embedded within a caddy [Para: 0019(storage device include “a solid state drive (SSD)” and Para: 0163(the storage device an opposite of 15104is shown to include indentation 15370with a pattern of corresponding side of caddy 15003connect with RBD 15104)].
Regarding Claim 9, Ellis teaches wherein, when the embedded-RBD plug-in device is attached to the mount opening and a user is successful with providing certain authentication inputs, the data on the embedded-RBD plug-in device can be accessed through the embedded-RBD host device [Para: 0069( user may use the RBD allocation system 108 to request access to and/or release one of the RBD(s) 112 for use in one of the secured system(s) 106, ) and 0070 (“the RBD allocation system 108 may determine whether a user has appropriate rights (clearance, appropriate username, password, other authentication, etc.) to access one or more of the RBD(s) 112”)].
Regarding Claim 10, Ellis teaches claim 1, further comprising memory-storage [Para: 0019 (storage device include “a solid state drive (SSD)” or a “Serial AT Attachment (SATA) drive”)].
Regarding Claim 11, Ellis teaches a method that includes use of a removable boot drive (RBD) [Fig-4(removable bootable drives (RBD) – 404)] comprising:
attaching an embedded-RBD plug-in device to a mount opening [Para: 0003 (RBD may comprise an SFF RBD that is configured to be inserted into an RBD enclosure created for an SFF laptop” via opening 418 see fig-4)];
loading pre-boot authentication firmware from the embedded-RBD plug-in device onto an embedded-RBD host device [Para: 0100(password of biometric authentication required for “secure boot loading software that allows the SFF device 402 to be booted up with the secure operating system”)];
receiving pre-boot authentication input [Para: 0066(“the RBD allocation system 108 performs user authentication functions to determine whether a user is who the user says it is and/or authenticate a user's right to access the RBD(s) 112”];
comparing pre-boot authentication input with existing data [Para: 0082(“a datastore configured to store user identifiers of users … generic alphanumeric key strings corresponding to users, passwords, etc. In some implementations, the user identifiers may form a basis to verify and/or authenticate a user”)];
accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting, and executing that operating system on the embedded-RBD host device [Para: 0100(password of biometric authentication required for “secure boot loading software that allows the SFF device 402 to be booted up with the secure operating system”)] and 0110], wherein the accessing the operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting includes decrypting data and executing the decrypted data [Para: 0100(“secure operating system, secure applications, secure processes, and/or other secure resources may be protected by encryption” suggests that a decryption is inherently there to encrypted data)];
accessing data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device [Para: 0100(as data for “secure boot loading software that allows the SFF device 402 to be booted up with the secure operating system” from RBD 404)] and 0110];
storing data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device [Para: 0110(RBD 504 includes secure operating system that is stored on a SSD)].
Laputz teaches securely accessing a memory card associated with the embedded-RBD plug-in device for securely accessing operating system data in the embedded-RBD plug-in device for booting as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12, Ellis teaches binding an embedded-RBD plug-in device to a user or users [Para:0010(through use of “user identifier”)];
dispensing the embedded-RBD plug-in device [Para: 0068].
Regarding Claim 13, Ellis teaches wherein: the mount opening (opening 418) is located on a side of the embedded-RBD host device (at side of SFF 402);
the embedded-RBD host device resembles a laptop computer [Para: 0003(“RBD may comprise an SFF RBD that is configured to be inserted into an RBD enclosure created for an SFF laptop”)];
the embedded-RBD plug-in device comprises a boot drive [Para: 0110(RBD has boot loading software)].
Regarding Claim 14, Ellis teaches wherein: the attaching comprises an electrical[Para: 0117(“back plate 528 is made of metal or other conductive material to support an electrical connection for a removable disk inserted in the RBD enclosure 506,”)]; and mechanical coupling [Para: 0145(“locking mechanism 12195 of the RBD 12104, which has two latches corresponding to the notches of the ejection mechanism 12106, each latch fitting into a corresponding notch to securely position the RBD 12104”)];
the existing data is stored on the embedded-RBD plug-in device prior to the attaching [Para: 0100(“RBD 404 includes a secure operating system, secure applications, secure processes, and/or other secure resources”)].
Regarding Claim 15, Ellis teaches wherein: the accessing comprises decrypting encrypted data; the storing data comprises encrypting new data [Para: 0100(“secure operating system, secure applications, secure processes, and/or other secure resources may be protected by encryption” suggests that a decryption is inherently there to encrypted data)].
Regarding Claim 20, Ellis teaches carrying-out post-boot authentication on the executed operating system [Para: 0100(“secure applications, secure processes, and/or secure resources may include hardware and/or software that is not accessible by processes executing outside the secure operating system” as authentication continues post boot)].
5. Claims 3, 5, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis and Laputz (hereinafter, “Ellis-Laputz”) as applied to claim 1 above and Anastosis Chrysovoulos (hereinafter “Chrys”), WO 2015124798.
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, Ellis-Laputz teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as described rejecting claim 1 above. Ellis-Laputz does not disclose a two-factor-authentication device.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., authentication operation of a hand holdable device), Chrys teaches a two-factor-authentication of a portable device [Page-1 lines 34-36].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ellis-Laputz’s teachings of authentication of a user for RBD with Chrys’s teachings of a two-factor-authentication of a portable device for the purpose of ensuring only authorized person to have access to RBD data.
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Chrys teaches a smartwatch for use as a two-factor authentication device [Page-12 lines: 11-14 and page-13(19-25)].
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
Conclusion
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 MOHAMMED H REHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1412. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00 - 5.00.
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.
/MOHAMMED H REHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights