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 § 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wetterwald teaches:
A system (Fig. 4) comprising:
a barrier (Fig. 4, element 430 - - “Substation Physical Security Perimeter (ESP)) surrounding an enclosure (Fig. 4, element 428; ¶0035, “Also as show, architecture 400 may implement an electronic security perimeter (ESP) 428 that protects the equipment of the critical infrastructure from unauthorized virtual/cyber intrusions”) containing a private computer network (¶0031, “… networking device 410 may also function as a path computation engine (PCE), to determine the various communication pathways used in the local network of the substation”; ¶0035, “For example, networking device 410 (e.g., a connected grid router/PCE, etc.) may implement ESP 428 by differentiating the subnets and dedicating different subnets for the critical flows (e.g., within ESP 428)”; i.e., the ESP contains a LAN which is considered a “private” network - see ¶0014, “LANs typically connect the nodes over dedicated private communications links located in the same general physical location, such as a building or campus”) and one or more networked devices configured to be connected to the private computer network (Fig. 4, elements 422 and 426 are connected via the private network),
wherein the barrier is configured to permit a public computer network to enter a portion of the barrier (Fig. 4, element 406 connects with element 410 via the barrier 430; ¶0030, “External to the substation may be any number of enterprise/data center devices 406, such as servers, routers, switches, and the like, which may provide any number of services with respect to the substation … In another example, enterprise/data center devices 406 may execute a network and security management service 404 that provides control over the networking and security devices of the substation via MPLS WAN 408”; i.e.., a WAN is considered a “public” network - see ¶0014, “WANs, on the other hand, typically connect geographically dispersed nodes over long-distance communications links … The Internet is an example of a WAN that connects disparate networks throughout the world, providing global communication between nodes on various networks”);
…
a gateway (Fig. 4, element 410; ¶0035, “Further, by requirement, communications between a control center (e.g., the control center housing devices 406) and the devices in ESP 428 must go over an Access Point/Gateway, such as PCE 410”) … configured to control network traffic between the one or more networked devices and the public computer network (¶0035, “For example, networking device 410 (e.g., a connected grid router/PCE, etc.) may implement ESP 428 by differentiating the subnets and dedicating different subnets for the critical flows (e.g., within ESP 428), as compared to other non-critical flows through access control lists (ACLs). To comply with regulatory requirements, ESP 428 must be maintained within PSP 430 and all of the links IN or OUT of PSP 430 should permit only predefined information to flow, while preventing undesired traffic such as firmware updates, etc. from entering or existing ESP 428. Further, by requirement, communications between a control center (e.g., the control center housing devices 406) and the devices in ESP 428 must go over an Access Point/Gateway, such as PCE 410”; i.e., the access point 410 controls all traffic between a public network element 406 and the private network elements contained within 428).
Wetterwald does not disclose:
a container located within the enclosure and configured to:
mount to the portion of the barrier, such that a part of the container superposes the portion of the barrier; and
prevent the public computer network from breaching the container and entering a piece of the enclosure located outside the container; and
a gateway located within the container …
Macioch teaches:
a container (Fig. 3, element 302) located within the enclosure (¶0066, “Referring again to FIG. 3, a storage enclosure 302 may be located within the wall 300. Storage enclosure includes the components of data farm 104”; i.e., a storage container (302) is located within an enclosed wall, which the examiner interprets as “the enclosure”) and configured to:
mount to the portion of the barrier (Fig. 5 details element 400 (the container) being mounted within a wall; ¶0069, “Alternatively, housing 400 may include only one surface, configured to mount storage apparatus to one side of the mounting surface”; ¶0073, “FIG. 5 illustrates a cross-sectional view 500 of a plurality of housing 400 installed within a wall, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention”), such that a part of the container superposes the portion of the barrier (¶0073, “Backing material 504 allows for a plurality of housings 400 to be installed in advance on backing material 504 (e.g., at a factory), then attaching the backing material populated with housings 400 to studs 502”; i.e., the backing material of the container mounts on a stud portion within the wall); and
prevent the public computer network from breaching the container (¶0078, “In contrast, embodiments in accordance with the present invention include data farms located in widely dispersed locations, which are typically interconnected through an untrusted WAN 101 such as the Internet. Therefore, each dispersed data farm 104 should include a data protection module such as a firewall … Data protection modules may be implemented in … communication interface 128. Each data farm 104 includes a trusted environment behind its respective data protection module …”; i.e., prevent the WAN 101 from directly accessing the data farm within the storage enclosure by virtue of the communication interface element 128) and entering a piece of the enclosure located outside the container (¶0069, “FIG. 4 illustrates a housing 400 for a storage apparatus 126 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. Although housing 400 is illustrated as a parallelepiped with six surfaces (including two major surfaces and four edge surfaces)”; i.e., Fig. 4 details how the container is fully enclosed via six surfaces, which would physically prevent any aspect of the WAN 101 from exiting the container into the wall enclosure); and
a gateway (Fig. 2, element 128) located within the container (¶0068, “Similarly, data farm 104 should include a communication interface 128 to WAN 101”; ¶0078, “Therefore, each dispersed data farm 104 should include a data protection module such as a firewall, anti-virus processes, and so forth. Data protection modules may be implemented in local controller 124 and/or communication interface 128”; i.e., the data farm 104 is contained within the container (Fig. 3, element 302) and contains at least a firewall at its communication interface 128) …
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald’s perimeter to include a container that mounts to the perimeter and houses an access control device, as taught by Macioch, in order to provide means for concealing the access control device within the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to implement networking components, such as access control devices, within a secured perimeter in a concealed manner, so as to not make a person within the perimeter necessarily aware that they are within the secured perimeter (Macioch, ¶0065, “All storage apparatus 126 and associated local control units 124 at data farm 104 should be substantially concealed. A person should not be aware that they were within a data farm 104”).
Regarding Claim 14:
The system of claim 11, wherein Wetterwald in view of Macioch further teaches the one or more networked devices include at least one of a computer (Wetterwald, ¶0034, “For example, substation bus 420 may include any number of local, IP-enabled intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) 426. As would be appreciated, IEDs are typically computerized devices…”), a server, or a database storing data, images, algorithms, software, applications, or processes.
Regarding Claim 15:
The system of claim 11, wherein Wetterwald in view of Macioch further teaches the enclosure includes a room (Macioch, ¶0058, “FIG. 3 illustrates an internal view of a wall 300 without attached drywall”), and the barrier includes a floor, a ceiling, and a wall of the room (Macioch, Fig. 3 further details a floor, ceiling, and the wall).
The motivation to apply Macioch to Wetterwald for the rejection of claim 15 is the same motivation applied to the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
The system of claim 11, wherein the container is configured to prevent a user located within the enclosure from accessing the public computer network (Wetterwald, ¶0035, “For example, networking device 410 (e.g., a connected grid router/PCE, etc.) may implement ESP 428 by differentiating the subnets and dedicating different subnets for the critical flows (e.g., within ESP 428), as compared to other non-critical flows through access control lists (ACLs). To comply with regulatory requirements, ESP 428 must be maintained within PSP 430 and all of the links IN or OUT of PSP 430 should permit only predefined information to flow, while preventing undesired traffic such as firmware updates, etc. from entering or existing ESP 428. Further, by requirement, communications between a control center (e.g., the control center housing devices 406) and the devices in ESP 428 must go over an Access Point/Gateway, such as PCE 410”; i.e., all traffic is handled via grid router 410 in such a matter that a user located within the security perimeter cannot directly access the public network outside of the perimeter).
Claim(s) 12, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in further view of “An” (US 10477719).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch teaches:
The system of claim 11, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch does not disclose:
… wherein the private computer network and the public computer network each include cables fastened to the container using tamper-resistant fasteners located within the container, and
wherein the cables are configured to be unfastened from only within the container.
An teaches:
… wherein the private computer network and the public computer network each include cables fastened to the container using tamper-resistant fasteners located within the container, and
wherein the cables are configured to be unfastened from only within the container (Col. 2, lines 1-15, “… once the cables are installed, a hatch may be extended toward the cables and the cables forced into a smaller section of the opening. As this hatch is extended, a ratcheting mechanism engages and this resists movement of the hatch … At this point, the initial opening in the enclosure is now occupied by the cables or covered by the hatch”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s barrier to include secure cabling apertures, as taught by An, in order to allow for network cabling to enter the secure perimeter while still maintaining the integrity of the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to provide a secure cabling system that enables cabling to penetrate a perimeter via an aperture in a manner which does not allow the cabling to be easily detached, or removed, from the aperture itself. This ensures that external communication cables can still feasibly be utilized within a secure perimeter while also ensuring that the integrity of the perimeter itself is not compromised.
Regarding Claim 19:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch teaches:
The system of claim 11, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch does not disclose:
…wherein the container has a fastener configured to penetrate the barrier at the portion, and
wherein the portion of the barrier defines:
an aperture configured to permit the public computer network to penetrate the barrier at the portion; and
a slot is configured to permit the fastener to penetrate the barrier at the portion.
An teaches:
…wherein the container has a fastener configured to penetrate the barrier at the portion (Col. 4, lines 30-32, “… a bottom tray 206 secured to the bottom of rack top 136 using, e.g., threaded screws…”), and
wherein the portion of the barrier defines:
an aperture configured to permit the public computer network to penetrate the barrier at the portion (Col. 1, lines 65 & Col. 2, lines 1-4, “The embodiments enable a user to pass a certain number of cables into an opening in an enclosure…”); and
a slot is configured to permit the fastener to penetrate the barrier at the portion (Fig. 3, element 206; Fig. 4; Col. 4, lines 30-32, “As shown in FIG. 3, secure-able cable access 200 includes a bottom tray 206 secured to the bottom of rack top 136 using, e.g., threaded screws…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s barrier to include secure cabling apertures, as taught by An, in order to allow for network cabling to enter the secure perimeter while still maintaining the integrity of the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to provide a secure cabling system that enables cabling to penetrate a perimeter via an aperture in a manner which does not allow the cabling to be easily detached, or removed, from the aperture itself. This ensures that external communication cables can still feasibly be utilized within a secure perimeter while also ensuring that the integrity of the perimeter itself is not compromised.
Regarding Claim 20:
The system of claim 19, wherein Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of An further teaches the container comprises a catch configured to couple to the fastener at the portion, and wherein the container is fastened to the barrier and the container prevents access to the fastener (Col. 2, lines 1-15, “… once the cables are installed, a hatch may be extended toward the cables and the cables forced into a smaller section of the opening. As this hatch is extended, a ratcheting mechanism engages and this resists movement of the hatch … At this point, the initial opening in the enclosure is now occupied by the cables or covered by the hatch”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s barrier to include secure cabling apertures, as taught by An, in order to allow for network cabling to enter the secure perimeter while still maintaining the integrity of the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to provide a secure cabling system that enables cabling to penetrate a perimeter via an aperture in a manner which does not allow the cabling to be easily detached, or removed, from the aperture itself. This ensures that external communication cables can still feasibly be utilized within a secure perimeter while also ensuring that the integrity of the perimeter itself is not compromised.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in view of “Strong” (US 2019/0043201) in further view of “Wedig” (US 2018/0293864).
Regarding Claim 13:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch teaches:
The system of claim 11, comprising … a security camera … configured to scan at least one of a location outside the enclosure or a location within the enclosure (Wetterwald, ¶0033, “For example, physical security devices 414 may include security cameras, biometric readers, motion detectors, keycard readers, door or gate locks, and the like, to prevent unauthorized physical access to the equipment in PSP 430”);
Wetterwald in view of Macioch does not disclose:
…comprising:
a door embedded in the barrier and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit entry into the enclosure ;
a security camera mounted on the barrier …;
a motion sensor mounted on the barrier and configured to sense at least one of motion outside the enclosure or motion inside the enclosure; and
a door sensor mounted on the door and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a barrier breach.
Strong teaches:
a security camera mounted on the barrier (¶0081, “loT devices 114 may also include…security systems (e.g., alarms, locks, cameras, motion detectors, fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems), … loT devices 114 can be statically located, such as mounted on a building, wall …”) …;
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s security camera to be wall-mounted, as taught by Strong, in order to allow the camera to be positioned in a manner where it’s more difficult to tamper with.
The motivation is to utilize a wall-mounted security camera to monitor a space housing secure components in order to provide a better scanning radius for the camera in addition to reducing the likelihood the camera may be tampered with.
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
a door embedded in the barrier and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit entry into the enclosure;
…
a motion sensor mounted on the barrier and configured to sense at least one of motion outside the enclosure or motion inside the enclosure; and
a door sensor mounted on the door and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a barrier breach
Wedig teaches:
…comprising:
a door embedded in the barrier and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit entry into the enclosure (¶0048, “Likewise, although not shown, the building 105 may have walls, roof, windows, doors, foundation, and other features found in buildings”; ¶0049, “… to determine the status of doors (e.g., open, closed, locked, or unlocked)…”);
a motion sensor mounted on the barrier (¶0232, “… the sensors 110 before or after installing (e.g., mounting) those sensors in various locations of the building 105”) and configured to sense at least one of motion outside the enclosure or motion inside the enclosure (¶0049, “… the sensor 145 is a motion sensor that is used to detect motion in the building …”); and
a door sensor mounted on the door (¶0050, “For example, if the sensor 150, which is a door sensor, is configured to detect the status of a single door, one instance of the sensor 150 may be installed on every (or selected) door(s) of an area of the building 105”) and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a barrier breach (¶0049, “… the sensor 150 is a door sensor to determine the status of doors (e.g., open, closed, locked, or unlocked)…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s perimeter to utilize various sensors, along with a door lock, as taught by Wedig, in order to provide sufficient surveillance needs for a secure site.
The motivation is to employ a plurality of sensors, including a door and lock, at a secure site to ensure that a threat may be indicated, such as a burglary, before severe damage has already occurred (Wedig, ¶0003, “The sensed condition may be indicative of a threat, such as a fire or burglary within the building. In many instances, by the time the threat is detected and emergency response personnel are called, severe damage has already occurred to the building and to people and property within the building”).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in further view of “Eterovic Alliende” (US 2021/0320948).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch teaches:
The system of claim 11, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch does not disclose:
… comprising:
a door embedded in the container and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit access to the gateway;
a security camera mounted on the container and configured to scan at least one of a location outside the container or the gateway; and
a door sensor is mounted on the door and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a lock breach.
Eterovic Alliende teaches:
… comprising:
a door embedded in the container and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit access to the gateway (Fig. 1, elements 160 and 240 are contained within server rack element 100; ¶0001, “To protect the server computers, each rack may be positioned inside an enclosure, or the rack itself may serve as the enclosure. The enclosure may include one or more doors that allow entry or access when needed, for example such as for maintenance, and one or more locks to secure the doors at all other times”);
a security camera mounted on the container and configured to scan at least one of a location outside the container or the gateway (¶0001, “The datacenter and the enclosures may also include additional security measures, such as security cameras…”; i.e., utilize a plurality of cameras at the container); and
a door sensor is mounted on the door (¶0029, “The sensors 140 may be positioned anywhere on or in the enclosure, such as on the frame 102, on or near the doors 104… ”) and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a lock breach (¶0029, “The sensors 140 may capture the physical environment or state of the server rack 100, which may include positioning of a door or other components of the server rack 100 (e.g., open or closed), contacts made with any part of the server rack 100, tampering with the server rack 100 (e.g., with doors or locks)…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s enclosure to utilize various sensors, along with a door lock, as taught by Eterovic Alliende, in order to provide sufficient surveillance needs for a secure site.
The motivation is to prevent unauthorized entities from accessing critical network infrastructure via utilizing additional security measures for an enclosure housing the network infrastructure via use of sensors. This allows authorized personnel to monitor the enclosure and quickly respond to emergencies triggered by the sensors (Eterovic Alliende, ¶0001).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in further view of “Franck” (US 2016/0295722).
Regarding Claim 18:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch teaches:
The system of claim 11, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch does not disclose:
…comprising:
a window embedded in the container and configured to permit a user located within the enclosure to observe a visual indicator within the container,
wherein the visual indicator is generated by at least one of the gateway, a motion sensor mounted on the container and configured to sense a container breach, or a motion sensor mounted on the gateway and configured to sense a gateway breach.
Franck teaches:
…comprising:
a window embedded in the container and configured to permit a user located within the enclosure to observe a visual indicator within the container (¶0139, “Referring to FIG. 21, the door 702 may include a … window 778. In some embodiments, the window 778 is transparent or semi-transparent. … The window allows a user to view the status of a device mounted on the support plate 760 (FIG. 19)”),
wherein the visual indicator is generated by at least one of the gateway (¶0139, “… The window allows a user to view the status of a device mounted on the support plate 760 (FIG. 19)”), a motion sensor mounted on the container and configured to sense a container breach, or a motion sensor mounted on the gateway and configured to sense a gateway breach.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s container to include a transparent window panel, as taught by Franck, in order to allow a user to view the status of a device mounted within the container.
The motivation is to provide an added convenience to a user, such as a network administrator, who may need to troubleshoot networking equipment within a container, but without having to open the container by adding a transparent window to the container.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in further view of “Strong” (US 2019/0043201).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wetterwald teaches:
A system (Fig. 4) comprising:
a [barrier] (Fig. 4, element 430 - - “Substation Physical Security Perimeter (ESP)) surrounding a [enclosure] (Fig. 4, element 428; ¶0035, “Also as show, architecture 400 may implement an electronic security perimeter (ESP) 428 that protects the equipment of the critical infrastructure from unauthorized virtual/cyber intrusions”) containing a private computer network (¶0031, “… networking device 410 may also function as a path computation engine (PCE), to determine the various communication pathways used in the local network of the substation”; ¶0035, “For example, networking device 410 (e.g., a connected grid router/PCE, etc.) may implement ESP 428 by differentiating the subnets and dedicating different subnets for the critical flows (e.g., within ESP 428)”; i.e., the ESP contains a LAN which is considered a “private” network - see ¶0014, “LANs typically connect the nodes over dedicated private communications links located in the same general physical location, such as a building or campus”) and one or more networked devices storing algorithms and configured to be connected to the private computer network (Fig. 4, elements 422 and 426 are connected via the private network),
wherein the [barrier] is configured to permit a public computer network to enter a portion of the [barrier] (Fig. 4, element 406 connects with element 410 via the barrier 430; ¶0030, “External to the substation may be any number of enterprise/data center devices 406, such as servers, routers, switches, and the like, which may provide any number of services with respect to the substation … In another example, enterprise/data center devices 406 may execute a network and security management service 404 that provides control over the networking and security devices of the substation via MPLS WAN 408”; i.e.., a WAN is considered a “public” network - see ¶0014, “WANs, on the other hand, typically connect geographically dispersed nodes over long-distance communications links … The Internet is an example of a WAN that connects disparate networks throughout the world, providing global communication between nodes on various networks”);
a security camera … configured to scan at least one of a location outside the room or a location within the room (¶0033, “For example, physical security devices 414 may include security cameras, biometric readers, motion detectors, keycard readers, door or gate locks, and the like, to prevent unauthorized physical access to the equipment in PSP 430”);
…
gateway (Fig. 4, element 410; ¶0035, “Further, by requirement, communications between a control center (e.g., the control center housing devices 406) and the devices in ESP 428 must go over an Access Point/Gateway, such as PCE 410”) … configured to control network traffic between the one or more networked devices and the public computer network (¶0035, “For example, networking device 410 (e.g., a connected grid router/PCE, etc.) may implement ESP 428 by differentiating the subnets and dedicating different subnets for the critical flows (e.g., within ESP 428), as compared to other non-critical flows through access control lists (ACLs). To comply with regulatory requirements, ESP 428 must be maintained within PSP 430 and all of the links IN or OUT of PSP 430 should permit only predefined information to flow, while preventing undesired traffic such as firmware updates, etc. from entering or existing ESP 428. Further, by requirement, communications between a control center (e.g., the control center housing devices 406) and the devices in ESP 428 must go over an Access Point/Gateway, such as PCE 410”; i.e., the access point 410 controls all traffic between a public network element 406 and the private network elements contained within 428).
Wetterwald does not disclose:
a wall surrounding a room …
a security camera mounted on the wall …;
a container located within the room and configured to:
mount to the portion of the wall, such that a part of the container superposes the portion of the wall; and
prevent the public computer network from breaching the container and entering a piece of the room located outside the container; and
a gateway located within the container …
Macioch teaches:
a wall surrounding a room (¶0058, “FIG. 3 illustrates an internal view of a wall 300 without attached drywall”; i.e. Fig. 3 details open walls surrounding the outside of a “room”. Here, the examiner interprets the term “room” to encompass both the interior portion of the wall, as well as the space enclosed by it); …
a container (Fig. 3, element 302) located within the room (¶0066, “Referring again to FIG. 3, a storage enclosure 302 may be located within the wall 300. Storage enclosure includes the components of data farm 104”; i.e., a storage container (302) is located within a wall, which the examiner interprets the wall as being a part of a “room”) and configured to:
mount to the portion of the wall (Fig. 5 details element 400 (the container) being mounted within a wall; ¶0069, “Alternatively, housing 400 may include only one surface, configured to mount storage apparatus to one side of the mounting surface”; ¶0073, “FIG. 5 illustrates a cross-sectional view 500 of a plurality of housing 400 installed within a wall, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention”), such that a part of the container superposes the portion of the wall (¶0073, “Backing material 504 allows for a plurality of housings 400 to be installed in advance on backing material 504 (e.g., at a factory), then attaching the backing material populated with housings 400 to studs 502”; i.e., the backing material of the container mounts on a stud portion within the wall); and
prevent the public computer network from breaching the container (¶0078, “In contrast, embodiments in accordance with the present invention include data farms located in widely dispersed locations, which are typically interconnected through an untrusted WAN 101 such as the Internet. Therefore, each dispersed data farm 104 should include a data protection module such as a firewall … Data protection modules may be implemented in … communication interface 128. Each data farm 104 includes a trusted environment behind its respective data protection module …”; i.e., prevent the WAN 101 from directly accessing the data farm within the storage enclosure by virtue of the communication interface element 128) and entering a piece of the room located outside the container (¶0069, “FIG. 4 illustrates a housing 400 for a storage apparatus 126 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. Although housing 400 is illustrated as a parallelepiped with six surfaces (including two major surfaces and four edge surfaces)”; i.e., Fig. 4 details how the container is fully enclosed via six surfaces, which would physically prevent any aspect of the WAN 101 from exiting the container into the wall enclosure); and
a gateway (Fig. 2, element 128) located within the container (¶0068, “Similarly, data farm 104 should include a communication interface 128 to WAN 101”; ¶0078, “Therefore, each dispersed data farm 104 should include a data protection module such as a firewall, anti-virus processes, and so forth. Data protection modules may be implemented in local controller 124 and/or communication interface 128”; i.e., the data farm 104 is contained within the container (Fig. 3, element 302) and contains at least a firewall at its communication interface 128) …
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald’s perimeter to include wall for a container that mounts to the wall and houses an access control device, as taught by Macioch, in order to provide means for concealing the access control device within the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to implement networking components, such as access control devices, within a secured perimeter in a concealed manner, so as to not make a person within the perimeter necessarily aware that they are within the secured perimeter (Macioch, ¶0065, “All storage apparatus 126 and associated local control units 124 at data farm 104 should be substantially concealed. A person should not be aware that they were within a data farm 104”).
Wetterwald in view of Macioch does not disclose:
a security camera mounted on the wall …
Strong teaches:
a security camera mounted on the wall (¶0081, “loT devices 114 may also include…security systems (e.g., alarms, locks, cameras, motion detectors, fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems), … loT devices 114 can be statically located, such as mounted on a building, wall …”) …
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch’s security camera to be wall-mounted, as taught by Strong, in order to allow the camera to be positioned in a manner where it’s more difficult to tamper with.
The motivation is to utilize a wall-mounted security camera to monitor a space housing secure components in order to provide a better scanning radius for the camera in addition to reducing the likelihood the camera may be tampered with.
Regarding Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong further teaches the one or more networked devices include at least one of a computer (Wetterwald, ¶0034, “For example, substation bus 420 may include any number of local, IP-enabled intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) 426. As would be appreciated, IEDs are typically computerized devices…”), a server, or a database storing data, images, software, applications, or processes.
Regarding Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches the container is configured to prevent a user located within the room from accessing the public computer network (Wetterwald, ¶0035, “For example, networking device 410 (e.g., a connected grid router/PCE, etc.) may implement ESP 428 by differentiating the subnets and dedicating different subnets for the critical flows (e.g., within ESP 428), as compared to other non-critical flows through access control lists (ACLs). To comply with regulatory requirements, ESP 428 must be maintained within PSP 430 and all of the links IN or OUT of PSP 430 should permit only predefined information to flow, while preventing undesired traffic such as firmware updates, etc. from entering or existing ESP 428. Further, by requirement, communications between a control center (e.g., the control center housing devices 406) and the devices in ESP 428 must go over an Access Point/Gateway, such as PCE 410”; i.e., all traffic is handled via grid router 410 in such a matter that a user located within the security perimeter cannot directly access the public network outside of the perimeter).
Claim(s) 2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in view of “Strong” (US 2019/0043201) in further view of “An” (US 10477719).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches:
The system of claim 1, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
… wherein the private computer network and the public computer network each include cables fastened to the container using tamper-resistant fasteners located within the container, and
wherein the cables are configured to be unfastened from only within the container.
An teaches:
… wherein the private computer network and the public computer network each include cables fastened to the container using tamper-resistant fasteners located within the container, and
wherein the cables are configured to be unfastened from only within the container (Col. 2, lines 1-15, “… once the cables are installed, a hatch may be extended toward the cables and the cables forced into a smaller section of the opening. As this hatch is extended, a ratcheting mechanism engages and this resists movement of the hatch … At this point, the initial opening in the enclosure is now occupied by the cables or covered by the hatch”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s barrier to include secure cabling apertures, as taught by An, in order to allow for network cabling to enter the secure perimeter while still maintaining the integrity of the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to provide a secure cabling system that enables cabling to penetrate a perimeter via an aperture in a manner which does not allow the cabling to be easily detached, or removed, from the aperture itself. This ensures that external communication cables can still feasibly be utilized within a secure perimeter while also ensuring that the integrity of the perimeter itself is not compromised.
Regarding Claim 8:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches:
The system of claim 1, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
… wherein the container has a fastener configured to penetrate the wall at the portion, and
wherein the portion of the wall defines:
an aperture configured to permit the public computer network to penetrate the wall at the portion; and
a slot is configured to permit the fastener to penetrate the wall at the portion.
An teaches:
… wherein the container has a fastener configured to penetrate the wall at the portion (Col. 4, lines 30-32, “… a bottom tray 206 secured to the bottom of rack top 136 using, e.g., threaded screws…”), and
wherein the portion of the wall defines:
an aperture configured to permit the public computer network to penetrate the wall at the portion (Col. 1, lines 65 & Col. 2, lines 1-4, “The embodiments enable a user to pass a certain number of cables into an opening in an enclosure…”); and
a slot is configured to permit the fastener to penetrate the wall at the portion (Fig. 3, element 206; Fig. 4; Col. 4, lines 30-32, “As shown in FIG. 3, secure-able cable access 200 includes a bottom tray 206 secured to the bottom of rack top 136 using, e.g., threaded screws…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s barrier to include secure cabling apertures, as taught by An, in order to allow for network cabling to enter the secure perimeter while still maintaining the integrity of the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to provide a secure cabling system that enables cabling to penetrate a perimeter via an aperture in a manner which does not allow the cabling to be easily detached, or removed, from the aperture itself. This ensures that external communication cables can still feasibly be utilized within a secure perimeter while also ensuring that the integrity of the perimeter itself is not compromised.
Regarding Claim 9:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches:
The system of claim 1, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
… wherein the container comprises a catch configured to couple to a fastener at the portion, and
wherein the container is fastened to the wall and the container prevents access to the fastener.
An teaches:
… wherein the container comprises a catch configured to couple to a fastener at the portion, and
wherein the container is fastened to the wall and the container prevents access to the fastener (Col. 2, lines 1-15, “… once the cables are installed, a hatch may be extended toward the cables and the cables forced into a smaller section of the opening. As this hatch is extended, a ratcheting mechanism engages and this resists movement of the hatch … At this point, the initial opening in the enclosure is now occupied by the cables or covered by the hatch”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s barrier to include secure cabling apertures, as taught by An, in order to allow for network cabling to enter the secure perimeter while still maintaining the integrity of the perimeter itself.
The motivation is to provide a secure cabling system that enables cabling to penetrate a perimeter via an aperture in a manner which does not allow the cabling to be easily detached, or removed, from the aperture itself. This ensures that external communication cables can still feasibly be utilized within a secure perimeter while also ensuring that the integrity of the perimeter itself is not compromised.
Regarding Claim 10:
The system of claim 9, wherein Wetterwald in view of Macioch in view of Strong in further view of An teaches the catch is configured to be uncoupled from the fastener from only within the container, and
wherein the container is unfastened from the wall from only within the container (An, Col. 2, lines 1-15, “… once the cables are installed, a hatch may be extended toward the cables and the cables forced into a smaller section of the opening. As this hatch is extended, a ratcheting mechanism engages and this resists movement of the hatch … At this point, the initial opening in the enclosure is now occupied by the cables or covered by the hatch”; i.e., to unfasten the enclosure would require opening the enclosure to un-ratchet the hatch).
The motivation to reject claim 10 by applying An to the combination of Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong is the same motivation applied in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in view of “Strong” (US 2019/0043201) in further view of “Wedig” (US 2018/0293864).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches:
The system of claim 1, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
… comprising:
a door embedded in the wall and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit entry into the room;
a motion sensor mounted on the wall and configured to sense at least one of motion outside the room or motion inside the room; and
a door sensor mounted on the door and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a wall breach.
Wedig teaches:
… comprising:
a door embedded in the wall and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit entry into the room (¶0048, “Likewise, although not shown, the building 105 may have walls, roof, windows, doors, foundation, and other features found in buildings”; ¶0049, “… to determine the status of doors (e.g., open, closed, locked, or unlocked)…”);
a motion sensor mounted on the wall (¶0232, “… the sensors 110 before or after installing (e.g., mounting) those sensors in various locations of the building 105”) and configured to sense at least one of motion outside the room or motion inside the room (¶0049, “… the sensor 145 is a motion sensor that is used to detect motion in the building …”); and
a door sensor mounted on the door (¶0050, “For example, if the sensor 150, which is a door sensor, is configured to detect the status of a single door, one instance of the sensor 150 may be installed on every (or selected) door(s) of an area of the building 105”) and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a wall breach (¶0049, “… the sensor 150 is a door sensor to determine the status of doors (e.g., open, closed, locked, or unlocked)…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s perimeter to utilize various sensors, along with a door lock, as taught by Wedig, in order to provide sufficient surveillance needs for a secure site.
The motivation is to employ a plurality of sensors, including a door and lock, at a secure site to ensure that a threat may be indicated, such as a burglary, before severe damage has already occurred (Wedig, ¶0003, “The sensed condition may be indicative of a threat, such as a fire or burglary within the building. In many instances, by the time the threat is detected and emergency response personnel are called, severe damage has already occurred to the building and to people and property within the building”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in view of “Strong” (US 2019/0043201) in further view of “Eterovic Alliende” (US 2021/0320948).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches:
The system of claim 1, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
… comprising:
a door embedded in the container and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit access to the gateway;
a second security camera mounted on the container and configured to scan at least one of a location outside the container or the gateway; and
a door sensor is mounted on the door and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a lock breach.
Eterovic Alliende teaches:
…comprising:
a door embedded in the container and securable by a lock, wherein the door is configured to permit access to the gateway (Fig. 1, elements 160 and 240 are contained within server rack element 100; ¶0001, “To protect the server computers, each rack may be positioned inside an enclosure, or the rack itself may serve as the enclosure. The enclosure may include one or more doors that allow entry or access when needed, for example such as for maintenance, and one or more locks to secure the doors at all other times”);
a second security camera mounted on the container and configured to scan at least one of a location outside the container or the gateway (¶0001, “The datacenter and the enclosures may also include additional security measures, such as security cameras…”; i.e., utilize a plurality of cameras (second camera) at the container); and
a door sensor is mounted on the door (¶0029, “The sensors 140 may be positioned anywhere on or in the enclosure, such as on the frame 102, on or near the doors 104… ”) and configured to sense at least one of motion of the door or a lock breach (¶0029, “The sensors 140 may capture the physical environment or state of the server rack 100, which may include positioning of a door or other components of the server rack 100 (e.g., open or closed), contacts made with any part of the server rack 100, tampering with the server rack 100 (e.g., with doors or locks)…”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s enclosure to utilize various sensors, along with a door lock, as taught by Eterovic Alliende, in order to provide sufficient surveillance needs for a secure site.
The motivation is to prevent unauthorized entities from accessing critical network infrastructure via utilizing additional security measures for an enclosure housing the network infrastructure via use of sensors. This allows authorized personnel to monitor the enclosure and quickly respond to emergencies triggered by the sensors (Eterovic Alliende, ¶0001).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Wetterwald” (US 2017/0353446) in view of “Macioch” (US 2014/0230342) in view of “Strong” (US 2019/0043201) in further view of “Franck” (US 2016/0295722).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong teaches:
The system of claim 1, …
Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong does not disclose:
… comprising:
a window embedded in the container and configured to permit a user located within the room to observe a visual indicator within the container,
wherein the visual indicator is generated by at least one of the gateway, a first motion sensor mounted on the container and configured to sense a container breach, or a second motion sensor mounted on the gateway and configured to sense a gateway breach.
Franck teaches:
… comprising:
a window embedded in the container and configured to permit a user located within the room to observe a visual indicator within the container (¶0139, “Referring to FIG. 21, the door 702 may include a … window 778. In some embodiments, the window 778 is transparent or semi-transparent. … The window allows a user to view the status of a device mounted on the support plate 760 (FIG. 19)”),
wherein the visual indicator is generated by at least one of the gateway (¶0139, “… The window allows a user to view the status of a device mounted on the support plate 760 (FIG. 19)”), a first motion sensor mounted on the container and configured to sense a container breach, or a second motion sensor mounted on the gateway and configured to sense a gateway breach.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wetterwald in view of Macioch in view of Strong’s secured perimeter system by enhancing Wetterwald in view of Macioch in further view of Strong’s container to include a transparent window panel, as taught by Franck, in order to allow a user to view the status of a device mounted within the container.
The motivation is to provide an added convenience to a user, such as a network administrator, who may need to troubleshoot networking equipment within a container, but without having to open the container by adding a transparent window to the container.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491