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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 12-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Sant (WO 0163994 A2).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 20, Van Sant teaches A method for managing operation of a data processing system (see Abstract: “A tamper-proof enclosure is disclosed. The enclosure utilizes various types of sensors that are capable of detecting chassis intrusion”. And see page 4, lines 8-11 and Figs. 2 and 3: “The two halves 14 and 16 of the case are fitted together to form the whole case. Inside the case is a main circuit board 18 which contains the circuitry of the device plus additional security monitoring circuitry.”), the method comprising:
identifying, using a detection mechanism, an occurrence of an event indicating that intrusion into an interior of a chassis of the data processing system are to be monitored (see page 5, line 23-page 6, line 4 and Figs. 2-4: “A key component of this switch arrangement is the mounting of conductive washers 10 for the switches. Each conductive washer 10 is bound to a rubber annulus 12 mounted on the cover bosses 20 via a contact adhesive, forming assembly 8. The thickness of each assembly 8 is greater than the clearance between the annular contacts 22 of on circuit board 18 and boss 20. This causes rubber annulus 12, which is resilient, to compress as the two halves 14 and 16 the case are secured together via mounting screws. … As it compresses, rubber annulus 12 pushes conducting washer 10 onto annular contact 22 on circuit board 18, thereby keeping conductive washer 10 forced into contact with each segment of annular contact 22, completing the circuit.” The Examiner interprets “keeping conductive washer 10 forced into contact with each segment of annular contact 22, completing the circuit” as identifying, using a detection mechanism, an occurrence of an event indicating that intrusion into an interior of a chassis of the data processing system are to be monitored for the following reason: the specification of the instant application states the following definition in [00125]: “At operation 300, an occurrence of an event is identified using a detection mechanism indicating that an intrusion into an interior of a chassis of a data processing system are to be monitored. The occurrence of the event may be identified by facilitating a flow of electricity between a start of a flow path and an end of the flow path for the first time. To do so, physical contact may be made between the two portions of the chassis, for example, during manufacturing of the data processing system.” );
based on the occurrence of the event:
monitoring, using a flow path of the detection mechanism, for an intrusion into the interior of the chassis, the flow path comprising a first portion secured to a first portion of the chassis and a second portion secured to a circuit card positioned in the interior of the chassis, the first portion and the second portion being electrically connected while the first portion of the chassis is attached to a second portion of the chassis, and the first portion and the second portion being electrically disconnected while the first portion of the chassis is not attached to the second portion of the chassis (see page 5, line 23-page 6, line 6 and Figs. 2-4: “A key component of this switch arrangement is the mounting of conductive washers 10 for the switches. Each conductive washer 10 is bound to a rubber annulus 12 mounted on the cover bosses 20 via a contact adhesive, forming assembly 8. The thickness of each assembly 8 is greater than the clearance between the annular contacts 22 of on circuit board 18 and boss 20. This causes rubber annulus 12, which is resilient, to compress as the two halves 14 and 16 the case are secured together via mounting screws... As it compresses, rubber annulus 12 pushes conducting washer 10 onto annular contact 22 on circuit board 18, thereby keeping conductive washer 10 forced into contact with each segment of annular contact 22, completing the circuit. If either cover 14 or 16 is lifted or tilted in an effort to look into or access the interior of the case, conductive washer 10 will lift from annular contact 22 and break the circuit, resulting in the deletion of the sensitive data.” The Examiner interprets the cover 16 as a first portion of the chassis. The Examiner further interprets the conductive washer 10 as a first portion secured to a first portion of the chassis. The Examiner interprets the circuit board 18 as a circuit card positioned in the interior of the chassis. The Examiner further interprets the annular contacts 22 on circuit board 18 as a second portion secured to a circuit card positioned in the interior of the chassis. The Examiner interprets the cover 14 as a second portion of the chassis. The Examiner interprets “This causes rubber annulus 12, which is resilient, to compress as the two halves 14 and 16 the case are secured together via mounting screws... As it compresses, rubber annulus 12 pushes conducting washer 10 onto annular contact 22 on circuit board 18, thereby keeping conductive washer 10 forced into contact with each segment of annular contact 22, completing the circuit” as the first portion and the second portion being electrically connected while the first portion of the chassis is attached to a second portion of the chassis. The Examiner further interprets “If either cover 14 or 16 is lifted or tilted in an effort to look into or access the interior of the case, conductive washer 10 will lift from annular contact 22 and break the circuit” as the first portion and the second portion being electrically disconnected while the first portion of the chassis is not attached to the second portion of the chassis); and
in an instance of the monitoring where an intrusion into the interior of the chassis is identified:
performing, based on a policy keyed to the intrusion, an action set to mitigate risk of undesired operation of the data processing system due to the intrusion (see page 2, lines 20-22: “A tamper-proof case is disclosed herein. If tampering is detected, the sensitive information, such as encryption/decryption keys, is deleted or zeroed out. Three forms of tampering are sensed: chassis intrusion”. And see page 5, lines 16-20: “The monitoring circuit is designed to detect an opening of one or more of the switches, which indicates an attempt to tamper with the contents of the case. When such a condition is detected, any important or sensitive data contained within the circuitry of circuit board 18, such as encryption keys on a cryptography module, are erased.” And see page 6, lines 4-6: “If either cover 14 or 16 is lifted or tilted in an effort to look into or access the interior of the case, conductive washer 10 will lift from annular contact 22 and break the circuit, resulting in the deletion of the sensitive data.” Also see page 7, lines 21 and 22: “Although any method may be used to delete the sensitive data from the memory of the particular device which has been placed into the tamper-proof case, the iris scan device described above utilizes a microcontroller which operates in zero-power "sleep" mode. The sensitive data in this case is one or more cryptography key, which are stored in SRAM. … The occurrence of any security violation generates an interrupt to the microcontroller which, following a transition from zero-power (sleep mode) to low-power mode, destroys all keys via an erasure/overwrite by software of the SRAM chip. The time to transition from zero power to low power mode is approximately on the order of microseconds, and the time to perform SRAM erasure/overwrite by software is a few milliseconds. Hence, the keys are erased well before anyone could successfully intrude into the security module.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Van Sant further teaches wherein the monitoring for the intrusion comprises: monitoring electrical states of the flow path and at least one other flow path (see page 4, line 20-page 5, line 2 and Figs. 2-4: “One half 16 of the case contains one or more bosses 20 that permit one or more mounting screws to pass through the circuit board and thread into the other half of the casing 14, which has corresponding bosses 17 defined therein. Located at the top of one boss of each pair of bosses 20 and 17 is an annulus of resilient material 12, preferably composed of foam or sponge rubber, … As shown in Figure 1, conductive washer 10 is attached to the other side of rubber annulus 12, thereby forming washer/annulus assembly 8. Circuit board 18 is then mounted on top of conductive washers 10, with the washers contacting circuit board 18 at the places where annular contacts 22 are printed.” And see page 5, lines 3-15 and Figs. 2-4: “All of the switches on the circuit board are connected in series by conductive traces 15. The switches are part of a monitoring circuit, which is electrically closed when all of conducting washers 10 join all segments of each annular contact 22. … The normal operation of the system is such that each switch is closed, thus completing the circuit. If any switch is opened, by the removal of conductive washer 10 from annular contact 22, the circuit will open and the resulting absence of current will be detected by a sensor.” The Examiner interprets “All of the switches on the circuit board” together with the corresponding conductive washers 10 closing all the switches in Figs. 2 and 4 as the flow path and at least one other flow path. The Examiner further interprets “If any switch is opened, by the removal of conductive washer 10 from annular contact 22, the circuit will open and the resulting absence of current will be detected by a sensor” as wherein the monitoring for the intrusion comprises: monitoring electrical states of the flow path and at least one other flow path); and
comparing the monitored electrical states to a criteria to identify whether the intrusion has occurred (see page 5, lines 16 and 17: “The monitoring circuit is designed to detect an opening of one or more of the switches, which indicates an attempt to tamper with the contents of the case.”).
Regarding claim 12, Van Sant further teaches wherein the criteria specifies that at least one of the monitored electrical states must be an open circuit for it to be concluded that the intrusion has occurred (see page 5, lines 9-12 and 16-17: “The normal operation of the system is such that each switch is closed, thus completing the circuit. If any switch is opened, by the removal of conductive washer 10 from annular contact 22, the circuit will open and the resulting absence of current will be detected by a sensor….The monitoring circuit is designed to detect an opening of one or more of the switches, which indicates an attempt to tamper with the contents of the case.” ).
Regarding claim 13, Van Sant further teaches wherein the at least one other flow path is positioned at a different location from the flow path (see page 5, line 23-page 6, line 4 and Figs. 2-4: “A key component of this switch arrangement is the mounting of conductive washers 10 for the switches. Each conductive washer 10 is bound to a rubber annulus 12 mounted on the cover bosses 20 via a contact adhesive, forming assembly 8. The thickness of each assembly 8 is greater than the clearance between the annular contacts 22 of on circuit board 18 and boss 20. This causes rubber annulus 12, which is resilient, to compress as the two halves 14 and 16 the case are secured together via mounting screws.” Also see Fig. 2 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
749
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because each flow path includes a conductive washer 10 mounted on a cover boss 20 and the four cover bosses 20 are positioned at different locations (the four corners of the chassis), Van Sant teaches wherein the at least one other flow path is positioned at a different location from the flow path).
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 2-7, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Sant (WO 0163994 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hobbs (US 2023/0121936).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Van Sant fails to teach wherein the first portion comprises a metallization pattern applied to a feature of the first portion of the chassis.
In the same field of endeavor, Hobbs discloses monitoring, using a flow path of the detection mechanism, for an intrusion into the interior of the chassis (see [0016] and Fig. 1: “CMOS 28 may support other functions during system power down states, such as tracking intrusion detection indications by an intrusion detection switch coupled to housing 12 and configured to detect when an access is made to the housing interior.”), the flow path comprising a first portion secured to a first portion of the chassis and a second portion secured to a circuit card positioned in the interior of the chassis, the first portion and the second portion being electrically connected while the first portion of the chassis is attached to a second portion of the chassis, and the first portion and the second portion being electrically disconnected while the first portion of the chassis is not attached to the second portion of the chassis (see [0017] and FIGS. 2, 2A and 2B: “an example depicts a ground interface of a CMOS battery 30 to a CMOS 28 at installation of the main board 14 to a housing 12. FIG. 2 depicts a sectional view of the information handling system depicting main board 14 coupled to housing 12 with a coupling device 36, such as a screw that engages threads of a mounting boss 32. FIG. 2A depicts mount boss 32 having a flat upper surface that engages against the bottom surface of main board 14 to hold main board 14 in a spaced relationship from housing 12, such as to encourage airflow for thermal cooling. FIG. 2B depicts main board 14 having a split ground pad 34 coupled around an opening through which coupling device 36 inserts to couple main board 14 to mounting boss 32. In the example embodiment, one half of split ground pad 34 interfaces with the CMOS battery ground terminal and the other half of split ground pad 34 interfaces with the CMOS power ground pin so that pressing a conductive coupling device 36, such as metal screw, in contact with both sides of split ground pad 34 completes a ground interface between the CMOS and CMOS battery to allow powering of the CMOS by the CMOS battery.”); wherein the first portion comprises a metallization pattern applied to a feature of the first portion of the chassis (see [0017] and FIGS. 2, 2A and 2B: “the split ground pad may be in the bottom of the main board and completed by the mounting boss with a conductive material disposed on the main boss upper surface.” The Examiner interprets the mounting boss 32 of the housing 12 as a feature of the first portion of the chassis. The Examiner further interprets “a conductive material disposed on the main boss upper surface” as wherein the first portion comprises a metallization pattern applied to a feature of the first portion of the chassis).
Both Van Sant (the conductive washer 10 and the rubber annulus 12 over the screw boss 20 in Fig. 3) and Hobbs (a conductive material disposed on the main screw boss 32 upper surface in Fig. 2A) teach a conductive first portion of a flow path secured to a first portion of a chassis and capable of detecting chassis intrusion, wherein the conductive first portion completes a circuit or breaks the circuit in cooperation with a second portion of the flow path secured to a circuit card positioned in the interior of the chassis when the first portion of the chassis is attached to a second portion of the chassis or detached from the second portion of the chassis, respectively. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the conductive washer 10 and the rubber annulus 12 over the screw boss 20 taught by Van Sant with the conductive material disposed on the main screw boss 32 upper surface disclosed by Hobbs as the first portion of the flow path secured to the first portion of the chassis. It would have been obvious because doing so achieves the predictable result of providing the conductive first portion of the flow path secured to the first portion of the chassis capable of detecting chassis intrusion when used in cooperation with the second portion of the flow path secured to the circuit card positioned in the interior of the chassis.
Regarding claim 3, Hobbs further teaches wherein the feature comprises a screw boss, and the metallization pattern is applied to a portion of the screw boss on which the circuit card rests while the first portion of the chassis is attached to the second portion of the chassis (see [0017] and FIGS. 2, 2A and 2B: “FIG. 2 depicts a sectional view of the information handling system depicting main board 14 coupled to housing 12 with a coupling device 36, such as a screw that engages threads of a mounting boss 32. FIG. 2A depicts mount boss 32 having a flat upper surface that engages against the bottom surface of main board 14 to hold main board 14 in a spaced relationship from housing 12, such as to encourage airflow for thermal cooling. …the split ground pad may be in the bottom of the main board and completed by the mounting boss with a conductive material disposed on the main boss upper surface”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Van Sant further teaches wherein the second portion comprises: a first metallization pattern; and a second metallization pattern that is not electrically connected to the first metallization pattern (see page 4, lines 12-16 and Fig. 4: “these switches consist of an electrical trace shaped like an annulus divided into two or more segments. These are best shown in Figure 4 as reference numbers 22. Annular segmented contact 22 is printed around hole 23 in circuit board 18. All segments of annular contact 22 must make contact with a conductive ring 10 (external to the circuit board), shown in Figure 1, for the switch to be closed.” The Examiner interprets “segments of annular contact 22” shown in Fig. 4 as wherein the second portion comprises: a first metallization pattern; and a second metallization pattern that is not electrically connected to the first metallization pattern).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Van Sant further teaches wherein the metallization pattern of the first portion is adapted to electrically connect the first metallization pattern to the second metallization pattern while the first portion of the chassis is attached to the second portion of the chassis (see page 5, line 23-page 6, line 6 and Figs. 2-4: “A key component of this switch arrangement is the mounting of conductive washers 10 for the switches. Each conductive washer 10 is bound to a rubber annulus 12 mounted on the cover bosses 20 via a contact adhesive, forming assembly 8. The thickness of each assembly 8 is greater than the clearance between the annular contacts 22 of on circuit board 18 and boss 20. This causes rubber annulus 12, which is resilient, to compress as the two halves 14 and 16 the case are secured together via mounting screws... As it compresses, rubber annulus 12 pushes conducting washer 10 onto annular contact 22 on circuit board 18, thereby keeping conductive washer 10 forced into contact with each segment of annular contact 22, completing the circuit”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Van Sant further teaches wherein the detection mechanism comprises: a detection circuit adapted to detect whether the first metallization pattern is electrically connected to the second metallization pattern (see page 5, lines 3-15 and Fig. 4: “All of the switches on the circuit board are connected in series by conductive traces 15. The switches are part of a monitoring circuit, which is electrically closed when all of conducting washers 10 join all segments of each annular contact 22. The segments of each annular contact 22 are joined when conductive washers 10 are compressed against the circuit board 18 by rubber annuli 12, mounted on bosses 20 on one half 16 of case when the two halves of the case 14 and 16 are secured to each other by the mounting screws (not shown). The normal operation of the system is such that each switch is closed, thus completing the circuit. If any switch is opened, by the removal of conductive washer 10 from annular contact 22, the circuit will open and the resulting absence of current will be detected by a sensor”).
Regarding claim 7, Van Sant further teaches wherein the detection circuit is adapted to indicate, after the first metallization pattern and the second metallization pattern have transitioned from being electrically connected to being electrically disconnected, that the intrusion into the chassis has occurred (see page 5, lines 3-17 and Fig. 2-4: “All of the switches on the circuit board are connected in series by conductive traces 15. The switches are part of a monitoring circuit, which is electrically closed when all of conducting washers 10 join all segments of each annular contact 22. The segments of each annular contact 22 are joined when conductive washers 10 are compressed against the circuit board 18 by rubber annuli 12, mounted on bosses 20 on one half 16 of case when the two halves of the case 14 and 16 are secured to each other by the mounting screws (not shown). The normal operation of the system is such that each switch is closed, thus completing the circuit. If any switch is opened, by the removal of conductive washer 10 from annular contact 22, the circuit will open and the resulting absence of current will be detected by a sensor. A switch is opened when any attempt is made to separate the two halves 14 and 16 of the case. Such attempts will cause conductive washers 10 to pull away from the annular contacts 22 on circuit board 18, thereby opening the monitoring circuit. The monitoring circuit is designed to detect an opening of one or more of the switches, which indicates an attempt to tamper with the contents of the case”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Sant (WO 0163994 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 219266380 U).
Regarding claim 10, Van Sant fails to teach wherein the criteria specifies that all electrical states must be open circuits for it to be concluded that the intrusion has occurred.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the criteria specifies that all electrical states must be open circuits for it to be concluded that the intrusion has occurred (see Abstract: “The utility model relates to the technical field of power equipment, in particular to an intelligent electric energy meter with a double-cover-opening detection function. The intelligent electric energy meter comprises a meter cover and a meter seat, the meter cover is matched with the meter seat, a circuit board is arranged in the meter seat, two cover opening detection switches are arranged on the circuit board and are spaced by a certain distance…. Only when all the uncovering detection switches are in the uncovering state, it is considered that the electric energy meter is uncovered, and the uncovering event is recorded, and it is considered that the electric energy meter is covered as long as one uncovering detection switch is in the covering state”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Van Sant by letting the criteria specify that all electrical states must be open circuits for it to be concluded that the intrusion has occurred, as taught by Xu. It would have been obvious because Xu explicitly teaches that doing so reduces the false alarm rate of the uncovering event (see Abstract).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Sant (WO 0163994 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aguayo Gonzalez (US 2022/0075869).
Regarding claim 11, Van Sant differs from claim 11 in that the criteria taught by Van Sant specifies that at least one of the monitored electrical states instead of a majority of the monitored electrical states must be open circuits for it to be concluded that the intrusion has occurred (see the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Aguayo Gonzalez discloses using majority voting to combine individual anomaly detector outputs for a final decision on whether an anomaly of a target device exists (see [0089]: “individual detectors exist for each feature and then the detector output are combined using majority voting for a final decision”. Also see [0003]).
Both Van Sant and Aguayo Gonzalez teach using the outputs from multiple anomaly detectors to decide whether an anomaly of a device exists. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve Van Sant by letting the criteria specify that a majority of the anomaly detectors must indicate an anomaly for it to be concluded that an anomaly exists, as taught by Aguayo Gonzalez. It would have been obvious because majority voting can improve the accuracy and reliability of anomaly detection by filtering out false positives and negatives. When Van Sant is modified in view of Aguayo Gonzalez as described above, it would teach wherein the criteria specifies that a majority of the monitored electrical states must be open circuits for it to be concluded that the intrusion has occurred, as recited in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record alone or in combination teaches wherein the first metallization pattern and the second metallization pattern are, at least in part, extended from a surface of the circuit card to fill in a gap between the first metallization pattern and the second metallization pattern and the metallization pattern of the first portion while the first portion of the chassis and the second portion of the chassis are attached, a recited limitation of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIMEI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7990. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/ZHIMEI ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2495