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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024, 11/14/2025, 12/08/2025, 03/05//2026, and 04/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc., should be avoided. In this case the Abstract contains the language “methods and systems … are disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 4, 13, and 19 recite “and the channel card being one of the channel cards” in lines 4, 4-5, and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should read “and the channel card being one channel card of the list of channel cards”.
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitation “the levels of trust” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims fall together accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shroff et. al. (US Publication No. US 2022/0382866 A1) hereinafter Shroff.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 16:
Claim 10. Shroff discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a data processing system, the operations comprising (Shroff [0011], [0068]): making an identification that a channel card of the data processing system has attempted an interaction with a hardware component of hardware resources of the data processing system (Shroff [0043] trigger posture assessment); in response to the identification: obtaining, using a channel card trust table, a level of trust for the channel card (Shroff [0047] “In certain embodiments, the content of the response comprises information associated with the hardware component, such a serial number or ECID of the hardware component and/or a product identifier of a product 105 for which the hardware component has been provisioned. A serial number (or ECID) received in the response can be verified by comparing it to a list of serial numbers (or ECIDs) authorized for product 105 to determine if there is a match. A product identifier received in the response can be verified by comparing it to the product ID of product 105 (the product that the hardware component is currently configured on) to determine if there is a match.”), the level of trust being based, at least in part, on a type of the channel card (Shroff [0039-0041] manufacturer may configure the HSM with information about ASICs that are authorized to run); making a determination, based on the level of trust, regarding whether the channel card is authorized to interact with the hardware component (Shroff [0043] determines whether the hardware component is authorized to run); in a first instance of the determination in which the channel card is authorized to interact with the hardware component: allowing the attempted interaction to occur, wherein the interaction facilitates provisioning of a computer implemented service (Shroff [0046] authorized to run, [0048]); and in a second instance of the determination in which the channel card is not authorized to interact with the hardware component: denying the attempted interaction (Shroff [0045] not authorized to run, [0049]).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected by the same rationales. Shroff further discloses a method for managing operation of a data processing system (Shroff [0010] method disclosed) and a data processing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (Shroff [0011-0012]).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 17:
Claim 11. Shroff further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise (Shroff [0011], [0068]): prior to making the identification: typifying, by a management controller of the data processing system, the channel card to obtain the type of the channel card (Shroff [0023], [0037] trust anchor may analyze a subset “that the manufacturer considers important to verify based on vulnerability of ASIC 120 to gray market modifications”; [0040] manufacturer-approved modification is plugged in, and trust anchor sees it at boot time; [0089]); assigning, by the management controller and based on the type of the channel card and a schema for assigning levels of trust, the level of trust for the channel card (Shroff [0070-0071] schema may be used); populating, by the management controller and using the level of trust, the channel card trust table, the channel card trust table indicating levels of trust for each channel card of the data processing system (Shroff [0051] may inventory the trust of the ASICs); providing, by the management controller, the channel card trust table to a basic input/output system (BIOS) of the data processing system (Shroff [0029-0036] trust assessments available at boot time); and publishing, by the BIOS, the channel card trust table during a startup procedure for the data processing system so that the channel card trust table is usable by an operating system of the data processing system during operation of the data processing system (Shroff [0029-0036] trust assessments available at boot time, [0043]).
Dependent claims 2 and 17 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected by the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 18:
Claim 12. Shroff further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10 (Shroff [0011], [0068]), wherein the type of the channel card comprises one selected from a list consisting of: a first type of channel card that is constructed by a manufacturer of the data processing system (Shroff [0089] “In certain embodiments, the manufacturer may be an entity that handles the physical manufacture of product 105.”); a second type of channel card that authorized by the manufacturer but is not constructed by the manufacturer (Shroff [0040] manufacturer-approved modifications; [0089] “In certain embodiments, the manufacturer may be a developer/owner of a product line that grants another entity permission to handle the physical manufacture of product 105”); and a third type of channel card that is not authorized by the manufacturer (Shroff [0023] gray market and unauthorized third party ASICs contemplated; [0083] “Trust anchor 110 determines that the hardware component is not authorized to run on product 105 based at least in part on the identifier received in step 608 failing to match one of the authorized identifiers”).
Dependent claims 3 and 18 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected by the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 19:
Claim 13. Shroff further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 12 (Shroff [0011], [0068]), wherein the channel card trust table comprises a list of channel cards of the data processing system and levels of trust for each channel card of the list of the channel cards (Shroff [0051] may inventory the trust of the ASICs), the levels of trust indicating different degrees of authorization for accessing the hardware resources, and the channel card being one of the channel cards (Shroff [0051] may inventory the trust of the ASICs; [0015] schema may indicate the functionality that the hardware component is authorized to enable; [0069-0070] schema may be used to indicate the amount of functionality allowed).
Dependent claims 4 and 19 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected by the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 20:
Claim 14. Shroff further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13 (Shroff [0011], [0068]), wherein the levels of trust for each channel card of the list of channel cards are based on associations between different types of channel cards and different levels of trust (Shroff [0051] may inventory the trust of the ASICs; [0015] schema may indicate the functionality that the hardware component is authorized to enable; [0069-0071] schema may be used to indicate the amount of functionality allowed; [0075]).
Dependent claims 5 and 20 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected by the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15:
Claim 15. Shroff further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13 (Shroff [0011], [0068]), wherein the first type of channel card has a higher degree of authorization for accessing the hardware resources than the second type of the channel card (Shroff [0069-0071] schema may be used to indicate the amount of functionality allowed).
Dependent claims 6 recites substantially the same content and is therefore rejected by the same rationales.
Regarding Claim 7:
Shroff further discloses the method of claim 6 (Shroff [0010] method), wherein the first type of channel card has a first degree of authorization for accessing the hardware resources that allows activation of all functions of the hardware resources (Shroff [0046] authorized to run, [0048]; [0069-0071] schema may be used to indicate the amount of functionality allowed), the second type of channel card has a second degree of authorization for accessing the hardware resources that allows activation of a portion of functions of a portion of the hardware resources (Shroff [0046] authorized to run, [0048]; [0069-0071] schema may be used to indicate the amount of functionality allowed), and the third type of channel card has a third degree of authorization for accessing the hardware resources that allows no activation of functions of the hardware resources (Shroff [0045] not authorized to run, [0049]; [0069-0071] schema may be used to indicate the amount of functionality allowed).
Regarding Claim 8:
Shroff further discloses the method of claim 3 (Shroff [0010] method), wherein the levels of trust are assigned by a management controller of the data processing system and provided, by the management controller, to a basic input/output system (BIOS) of the data processing system prior to a startup procedure for the data processing system (Shroff [0029-0036] trust assessments available at boot time, [0071] “Prior to receiving the schema, functionality of the hardware component is disabled”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Shroff further discloses the method of claim 2 (Shroff [0010] method), wherein the data processing system comprises the management controller separate from and tasked with managing operation of the hardware resources and the channel cards (Shroff Figure 1 Trust anchor manages and is separate from hardware resources (ASICs); [0025-0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the submitted PTO-892 Notice of References Cited 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 MIGUEL A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1241. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached on 5712727624. 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.
/M.A.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights