Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,8,12,14,15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hetzler (US 2016/0299865 A1).
As per claim 1, Hetzler teaches A method for managing operation of a data processing system, the method comprising: identifying, by a hardware resource of hardware resources of the data processing system, that a device is operably connected to the data processing system; (Hetzler Fig 2 Block 201 and Block 202 and [0019] FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a process 200 for use by a USB filter hub in accordance with an embodiment. FIG. 2 is discussed with respect to FIG. 1. First, in block 201, the USB filter hub 104 is plugged into a USB port 103 of a host computer system 101; any other USB ports on the host computer system 101 may be disabled based by root hub 102 based on the plugging in of the USB filter hub 104 into the USB port 103. Then, in block 202, a USB device (for example, USB device 107A) is plugged into a USB port of USB ports 105 on the USB filter hub 104.)
performing, using a management controller of the data processing system, a screening procedure to determine whether the device is any known good device; (Hetzler Fig 2 Block 203 and Block 204 and [0019] Then, in block 203, the USB device 107A is powered up based on the plugging into the USB filter hub 104, and the USB device 107A attempts to register and indicate its device type to the USB filter hub 104. The USB device 107A may be any appropriate type of USB device, including but not limited to a storage device, a keyboard, a mouse, a scanner, and a camera. [0020] Then, in block 204, the USB filter hub 104 determines whether the device type that was indicated by the USB device 107A in block 203 is a valid device type.)
in a first instance of the screening procedure in which the device is not the any known good device: denying the device access to the data processing system to reduce an impact of the device on the operation of the data processing system; (Hetzler Block 206 and [0021] If it is determined in block 204 that the device type is not a valid device type, flow proceeds to block 206, and the USB device 107A is flagged as a malicious device. Communications between a malicious device and host computer system 101 are blocked by the USB filter hub 104. An indication of the malicious device may be provided to the user in any appropriate manner.)
in a second instance of the screening procedure in which the device is the any known good device: allowing the device access to the data processing system to perform functions of the device; and providing, using the device, computer-implemented services. (Hetzler Fig 2 Block 205 and [0021] If it is determined in block 204 that the device type indicated by the USB device 107A is valid, flow proceeds to block 205, in which the USB device 107A communicates with the host computer system 101 via the USB filter hub 104. The USB filter hub 104 may restrict the types of commands that are transmitted from the USB device 107A to the host computer system 101 based on the device type. For example, a USB storage device may only use a predetermined set of storage commands. Any commands from the USB device 107A that are not part of the predetermined set of commands for the device type are intercepted by USB filter hub 104 and are not transmitted to the host computer system 101.)
As per claim 8, Hetzler teaches wherein the management controller is on a separate power domain from the hardware resources so that the management controller is operable while the hardware resources are inoperable. (Hetzler [0011] The USB filter hub may be a physical device that is located externally to the host computer system, between the host computer system and any USB devices that are connected to the host computer system in some embodiments. For example, the USB filter hub may have a USB adapter that plugs into a USB port of the host computer system, and a plurality of USB ports into which USB devices are plugged [0012] FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a system 100 comprising an external USB filter hub [separate power domain] in accordance with an embodiment.)
As per claim 12, Hetzler teaches wherein the management controller is separate from and tasked with managing operation of the hardware resources, and commands issued by the management controller override commands issued by the hardware resources. (Hetzler [0013] The USB filter hub 104 [management controller] may filter the USB protocol to ensure that only proper device commands, based on the type of the USB device, are forwarded to the host computer system 101 [data processing systems]. Command filtering can be applied by the USB filter hub 104 to any type of USB device, including but not limited to network cards, mice, keyboards, printers, or scanners. For example, for a USB device 107A comprising a storage device, the USB filter hub 104 does not allow any non-storage commands from the USB device to be sent to the host computer system 101. The USB filter hub 104 may also provide a generic interface which isolates the specifics of the USB devices 107A-N from the host computer system 101. For example, in some embodiments, the USB filter hub 104 reports all storage devices to the host computer system as generic for their type (e.g., flash, optical drive, HDD), thus avoiding having the OS on the host computer system 101 install a specific driver for any USB device. In such an embodiment, the driver for the USB filter hub 104 on the host computer system includes support for these generic devices. Therefore, the host computer system 101 will not search the web for new drivers for any USB device, so that compromised device drivers are avoided. In various embodiments, instead of USB port 103 as shown in FIG. 1, the interface between the USB filter hub 104 and the host computer system 101 may be any other appropriate type of interface, for example, a storage interface, such as an enterprise serial advanced technology attachment (eSATA). In such embodiments, the USB filter hub rejects all non-storage devices and [0025] For example, computer 500 may comprise host computer system 101, and a USB filter hub 104 may be connected to input/output (I/0) devices 570 [0027] The processor 510 is a hardware device for executing software that can be stored in the memory 520. The processor 510 can be virtually any custom made or commercially available processor [resource], a central processing unit (CPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), or an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the computer 500, and the processor 510 may be a semiconductor based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip) or a macroprocessor).
As per claim 14, Hetzler teaches wherein the hardware resource is a USB controller, and the device is operably connected to the data processing system via a USB receptacle. (Hetzler 0013] The USB filter hub 104 [USB controller] may filter the USB protocol to ensure that only proper device commands, based on the type of the USB device, are forwarded to the host computer system 101 [data processing systems]. Command filtering can be applied by the USB filter hub 104 to any type of USB device, including but not limited to network cards, mice, keyboards, printers, or scanners. For example, for a USB device 107A comprising a storage device, the USB filter hub 104 does not allow any non-storage commands from the USB device to be sent to the host computer system 101. The USB filter hub 104 may also provide a generic interface which isolates the specifics of the USB devices 107A-N from the host computer system 101. For example, in some embodiments, the USB filter hub 104 reports all storage devices to the host computer system as generic for their type (e.g., flash, optical drive, HDD), thus avoiding having the OS on the host computer system 101 install a specific driver for any USB device. In such an embodiment, the driver for the USB filter hub 104 on the host computer system includes support for these generic devices. Therefore, the host computer system 101 will not search the web for new drivers for any USB device, so that compromised device drivers are avoided. In various embodiments, instead of USB port 103 as shown in FIG. 1, the interface between the USB filter hub 104 and the host computer system 101 may be any other appropriate type of interface, for example, a storage interface, such as an enterprise serial advanced technology attachment (eSATA). In such embodiments, the USB filter hub rejects all non-storage devices).
As to claims 15 and 18, they are rejected based on the same reason as claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 2-4,16,17,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetzler (US 2016/0299865 A1) in view of Reyes (US 2021/0044563 A1) in further view of Garg (US 2022/0377172 A1).
As per claim 2, Hetzler does not teach obtaining, by the management controller and via a sideband channel of the data processing system, traffic data, the traffic data being usable to obtain communication patterns between the device and the hardware resources.
However, Reyes teaches obtaining, by the management controller and via a sideband channel of the data processing system, traffic data, the traffic data being usable to obtain communication patterns between the device and the hardware resources; (Reyes 0054] Embodiments of onboard analytics 103 module may determine and output a determination of a threat level indicating a level of risk associated with allowing the network traffic intercepted by the security device 101 to pass between the network computer system 111 and the network hardware 120 of network 150. Embodiments of the threat level may be depicted as a value, a percentage, and/or a probability, within a range of values, percentages or probabilities. For example, a threat level can be described as a value selected from 0 to 10 inclusively or 0% to 100% inclusively. Actions performed by the security device 101 may vary or be customized depending on the configuration of the security device 101 and/or one or more configurations and settings managed by the OOB management network 113 [oob is another term for sidecar in the networking world]. In some embodiments, the thresholds for the pre-set safe level may be dynamically set by the OOB management network 113 or the security device 101 using machine learning to identify and adjust the pre-set safe level to an optimal level of safety and risk, based on the network traffic patterns and determined levels of risk acceptable to the owners or administrators of the network 150. For example, through the learned behavior of the network owner or administrators previous settings and tolerance for allowing riskier network traffic to pass through the security device 101 or networks of security devices 101a-101n. [0066] For example, the security device 101 may connect to an open ethernet port, USB port, firewire port, thunderbird port, HDMI or other types of ports 109 that may be equipped to carry network traffic and data packets from the network 150 to the network computer system 111.)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reyes with the system of Hetzler to use a sideband channel. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Reyes into the system of Hetzler for the purpose of cyber-attack detection, prevention and mitigation. (Reyes paragraph 01)
Reyes does not teach analyzing, by the management controller and using at least one communication pattern, the traffic data to determine whether the traffic data is consistent with historical traffic patterns of the any known good device; and making a conclusion, based on the analyzing, regarding whether the device is the any known good device.
However, Garg teaches analyzing, by the management controller and using at least one communication pattern, the traffic data to determine whether the traffic data is consistent with historical traffic patterns of the any known good device; and making a conclusion, based on the analyzing, regarding whether the device is the any known good device. (Garg [0052] The PPCV controller 102 may include input/output interface(s) 302. The input/output interface(s) 302 may include any suitable type of output interface known in the art, such as a display (e.g., a liquid crystal display), speakers, a vibrating mechanism, or a tactile feedback mechanism. Input/output interface(s) 302 also includes ports for one or more peripheral devices, such as headphones, peripheral speakers, or a peripheral display. Further, the input/output interface(s) 302 may further include a camera, a microphone, a keyboard/keypad, or a touch-sensitive display. A keyboard/keypad may be a push-button numerical dialing pad (such as on a typical telecommunication device), a multi-key keyboard (such as a conventional QWERTY keyboard), or one or more other types of keys or buttons, and may also include a joystick-like controller and/or designated navigation buttons, or the like. [0053] Additionally, the PPCV controller 102 may include network interface(s) 304. The network interface(s) 304 may include any suitable sort of transceiver known in the art. For example, the network interface(s) 304 may include a radio transceiver that performs the function of transmitting and receiving radio frequency communications via an antenna. Also, the network interface(s) 304 may include a wireless communication transceiver and a near-field antenna for communicating over unlicensed wireless Internet Protocol (IP) networks, such as local wireless data networks and personal area networks (e.g., Bluetooth or near field communication (NFC) networks). Further, the network interface(s) 304 may include wired communication components, such as an Ethernet port or a Universal Serial Bus (USB). Hardware component(s) 306 may include additional hardware interface, data communication hardware, and data storage hardware. [0062] The communication request module 316 may employ one or more machine-learning algorithms to analyze a communication request to determine whether to generate a PoI message to determine a legitimacy of a communication request. The communication request module 316 may access a recipient profile associated with a recipient device to retrieve historical communication metadata. Without limitation, the historical communication metadata may include i) a record of communication requests received by the recipient device over a predetermined time interval, ii) indications of historical communication requests and completed communications that have been verified as legitimate communications or spoof communications, iii) originating device identifiers associated with communication requests and completed communications, iv) a day of the week and time of day that a communication request is initiated by an originating device, and v) the geolocation of an originating device at the time of initiating a communication request).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Garg with the system of Hetzler and Reyes to use historical traffic pattern. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Garg into the system of Hetzler and Reyes for the purpose of determining whether the device is communicating with a legitimate subscriber (Garg paragraph 02).
As per claim 3, Garg teaches intercepting communications sent from the device to the hardware resources prior to being received by a destination component of the hardware resources; obtaining, using the communications, metadata regarding characteristics of the communications; and obtaining, based on the metadata, the at least one communication pattern. (Garg [0052] The PPCV controller 102 may include input/output interface(s) 302. The input/output interface(s) 302 may include any suitable type of output interface known in the art, such as a display (e.g., a liquid crystal display), speakers, a vibrating mechanism, or a tactile feedback mechanism. Input/output interface(s) 302 also includes ports for one or more peripheral devices, such as headphones, peripheral speakers, or a peripheral display. Further, the input/output interface(s) 302 may further include a camera, a microphone, a keyboard/keypad, or a touch-sensitive display. A keyboard/keypad may be a push-button numerical dialing pad (such as on a typical telecommunication device), a multi-key keyboard (such as a conventional QWERTY keyboard), or one or more other types of keys or buttons, and may also include a joystick-like controller and/or designated navigation buttons, or the like. [0053] Additionally, the PPCV controller 102 may include network interface(s) 304. The network interface(s) 304 may include any suitable sort of transceiver known in the art. For example, the network interface(s) 304 may include a radio transceiver that performs the function of transmitting and receiving radio frequency communications via an antenna. Also, the network interface(s) 304 may include a wireless communication transceiver and a near-field antenna for communicating over unlicensed wireless Internet Protocol (IP) networks, such as local wireless data networks and personal area networks (e.g., Bluetooth or near field communication (NFC) networks). Further, the network interface(s) 304 may include wired communication components, such as an Ethernet port or a Universal Serial Bus (USB). Hardware component(s) 306 may include additional hardware interface, data communication hardware, and data storage hardware. [0062] The communication request module 316 may employ one or more machine-learning algorithms to analyze a communication request to determine whether to generate a PoI message to determine a legitimacy of a communication request. The communication request module 316 may access a recipient profile associated with a recipient device to retrieve historical communication metadata. Without limitation, the historical communication metadata may include i) a record of communication requests received by the recipient device over a predetermined time interval, ii) indications of historical communication requests and completed communications that have been verified as legitimate communications or spoof communications, iii) originating device identifiers associated with communication requests and completed communications, iv) a day of the week and time of day that a communication request is initiated by an originating device, and v) the geolocation of an originating device at the time of initiating a communication request).
As per claim 4, Garg teaches wherein the communications sent from the device are not provided to the destination component of the hardware resources until completion of the screening procedure. (Garg Fig 5 and [0087] At 506, the PPCV controller may employ one or more machine-learning algorithms to analyze a communication request relative to the historical communication metadata associated with the recipient device to determine a likelihood that the communication request is likely associated with a legitimate communication of a spoof communication. For example, consider a communication that typically occurs between an originating device and a recipient device on a particular day of the week and/or time of day. If the PPCV controller determines, via analysis, that the communication request is consistent with a customary communication (e.g., same originating device, the same day of the week, and/or time of day, originating device initiates the communication request at the same geolocation), the PPCV controller may infer that the communication is likely legitimate, and in doing so, forego generating a PoI message. In this instance, process 500 may proceed to 508. At 508, the PPCV controller may forgo generating a PoI message and instead re-direct the communication request to the I/S-CSCF of the telecommunication network to establish the communication between the originating device and the recipient device)
As to claims 16 and 19, they are rejected based on the same reason as claim 2.
As to claims 17 and 20, they are rejected based on the same reason as claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetzler (US 2016/0299865 A1) in view of Desai (US 2019/0042800 A1) in further view of Reyes (US 2021/0044563 A1).
As per claim 5, Hetzler does not teach wherein performing the screening procedure comprises: obtaining, by a management controller agent hosted by the hardware resources and via an in-band communication channel, device data, the device data being usable to identify at least a type of the device; providing, via a sideband channel of the data processing system, the device data to the management controller; identifying a class of device using the device data, the class of device being associated with the type of the device; and making a conclusion, based on the class of device, regarding whether the device is the any known good device.
However, Desai teaches wherein performing the screening procedure comprises: obtaining, by a management controller agent hosted by the hardware resources and via an in-band communication channel, device data, the device data being usable to identify at least a type of the device; (Desai [0055] Example 3 includes the subject matter of any of Examples 1 and 2, and wherein to enforce the policy enforcement command comprises to block data transfers associated with a USB device coupled to the USB controller. [0057] Example 5 includes the subject matter of any of Examples 1-4, and wherein to send the policy enforcement command comprises to send a block data transfer command, wherein the block data transfer command identifies the USB device [determines the type see paragraph 42 shown below also]
identifying a class of device using the device data, the class of device being associated with the type of the device; and making a conclusion, based on the class of device, regarding whether the device is the any known good device. (Desai [0042] The policy enforcement command 218 may include any command to restrict usage of a USB device. The policy enforcement command 218 may be determined based on an enterprise policy or otherwise configured by an administrator of the computing device 100. In some embodiments, in block 414, the policy enforcement command 218 may block all data transfers associated with one or more USB devices. For example, a potentially malicious device, such as a flash storage device that fails USB authentication, may be blocked. As another example, enterprise policy may block a particular device or type of devices, such as a flash storage device, from being used by software. As described further below, in some embodiments, data transfers for all newly connected USB devices may be blocked by default)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Desai with the system of Hetzler to identify device data type. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Desai into the system of Hetzler for the purpose of restrict device USB. (Desai paragraph 14)
Desai does not teach providing, via a sideband channel of the data processing system, the device data to the management controller.
However, Reyes teaches providing, via a sideband channel of the data processing system, the device data to the management controller; (Reyes 0054] Embodiments of onboard analytics 103 module may determine and output a determination of a threat level indicating a level of risk associated with allowing the network traffic intercepted by the security device 101 to pass between the network computer system 111 and the network hardware 120 of network 150. Embodiments of the threat level may be depicted as a value, a percentage, and/or a probability, within a range of values, percentages or probabilities. For example, a threat level can be described as a value selected from 0 to 10 inclusively or 0% to 100% inclusively. Actions performed by the security device 101 may vary or be customized depending on the configuration of the security device 101 and/or one or more configurations and settings managed by the OOB management network 113 [oob is another term for sidecar in the networking world]. In some embodiments, the thresholds for the pre-set safe level may be dynamically set by the OOB management network 113 or the security device 101 using machine learning to identify and adjust the pre-set safe level to an optimal level of safety and risk, based on the network traffic patterns and determined levels of risk acceptable to the owners or administrators of the network 150. For example, through the learned behavior of the network owner or administrators previous settings and tolerance for allowing riskier network traffic to pass through the security device 101 or networks of security devices 101a-101n)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reyes with the system of Hetzler and Desai to use a sideband channel. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Reyes into the system of Hetzler and Desai for the purpose of cyber-attack detection, prevention and mitigation (Reyes paragraph 01).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetzler (US 2016/0299865 A1) in view of Desai (US 2019/0042800 A1).
As per claim 6, Hetzler does not teach wherein the any known good device comprises a device that is not an any known bad device and is not any indeterminant device.
However, Desai teaches wherein the any known good device comprises a device that is not an any known bad device and is not any indeterminant device. (Desai 0042] The policy enforcement command 218 may include any command to restrict usage of a USB device. The policy enforcement command 218 may be determined based on an enterprise policy or otherwise configured by an administrator of the computing device 100. In some embodiments, in block 414, the policy enforcement command 218 may block all data transfers associated with one or more USB devices. For example, a potentially malicious device, such as a flash storage device that fails USB authentication, may be blocked. As another example, enterprise policy may block a particular device or type of devices, such as a flash storage device, from being used by software).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Desai with the system of Hetzler to determine a good device. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Desai into the system of Hetzler for the purpose of restricting device USB. (Desai paragraph 14)
As per claim 7, Desai teaches wherein the any known good device exhibits a level of risk that the device will act maliciously towards the data processing system that meets criteria, and the any known bad device and the any indeterminant device exhibit levels of risk that such devices will act maliciously towards the data processing system that does not meet the criteria. (Desai 0042] The policy enforcement command 218 may include any command to restrict usage of a USB device. The policy enforcement command 218 may be determined based on an enterprise policy or otherwise configured by an administrator of the computing device 100. In some embodiments, in block 414, the policy enforcement command 218 may block all data transfers associated with one or more USB devices. For example, a potentially malicious device, such as a flash storage device that fails USB authentication, may be blocked. As another example, enterprise policy may block a particular device or type of devices, such as a flash storage device, from being used by software).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetzler (US 2016/0299865 A1) in view of Poisner (US 2005/0015611 A1).
As per claim 9, Hetzler does not teach wherein the screening procedure is performed during a startup of the data processing system.
However, Poisner teaches wherein the screening procedure is performed during a startup of the data processing system. (Poisner [0034] According to a further embodiment, a similar bypass is implemented to transmit encryption keys to peripheral 155 upon computer system 100 startup to verify that the USB connection with peripheral 155 is trustworthy. In such an embodiment, host controller 144 also includes protected registers similar to registers 120 in MCH 110. Therefore, the trusted software accesses protected registers within host controller 144).
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Poisner with the system of Hetzler to perform screening procedure at the startup. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Poisner into the system of Hetzler for the purpose of providing a trusted or secured environment (Poisner paragraph 02)
As per claim 10, Poisner teaches wherein the hardware resources are adapted to interact with the device during the startup when not precluded from doing so by the management controller. (Poisner [0034] According to a further embodiment, a similar bypass is implemented to transmit encryption keys to peripheral 155 upon computer system 100 startup to verify that the USB connection with peripheral 155 is trustworthy. In such an embodiment, host controller 144 also includes protected registers similar to registers 120 in MCH 110. Therefore, the trusted software accesses protected registers within host controller 144 and Fig 4 and [0037] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of transmitting an encryption key to a peripheral 155. At processing block 410, computer system 100 begins the startup (boot) process. At processing block 420, the trusted software generates the encryption key. However, as described above, the encryption key may be generated at peripheral device 155. [0039] At processing block 440 a verification process occurs in which it is determined whether peripheral 155 is operating based upon the encryption key. According to one embodiment, the key is verified by putting a message on the display prompting the user to type a character on the keyboard. The character may be randomly chosen by the host software. And [0040] At processing block 450, host controller 144 is set up so that standard USE transactions can occur through the stack.).
As per claim 11, Poisner teaches wherein the hardware resources are in a low security state during the startup such that the hardware resources are not in a condition to screen the device for potential security threats. (Poisner [0034] According to a further embodiment, a similar bypass is implemented to transmit encryption keys to peripheral 155 upon computer system 100 startup to verify that the USB connection with peripheral 155 is trustworthy. In such an embodiment, host controller 144 also includes protected registers similar to registers 120 in MCH 110. Therefore, the trusted software accesses protected registers within host controller 144 and Fig 4 and [0037] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of transmitting an encryption key to a peripheral 155. At processing block 410, computer system 100 begins the startup (boot) process. At processing block 420, the trusted software generates the encryption key. However, as described above, the encryption key may be generated at peripheral device 155. [0039] At processing block 440 a verification process occurs in which it is determined whether peripheral 155 is operating based upon the encryption key. According to one embodiment, the key is verified by putting a message on the display prompting the user to type a character on the keyboard. The character may be randomly chosen by the host software. And [0040] At processing block 450, host controller 144 is set up so that standard USE transactions can occur through the stack.).
The examiner interpreting this to mean you cannot use usb device until they are verified after startup.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetzler (US 2016/0299865 A1) in view of Ogle (US 2018/0351744 A1).
As per claim 13, Hetzler does not teach wherein the device is a universal serial bus (USB) device, and a management entity of the data processing system is adapted to automatically initiate operation of the device upon identification that the device is operably connected to the data processing system when not precluded from doing so by the management controller
However, Ogles teaches the device is a universal serial bus (USB) device, and a management entity of the data processing system is adapted to automatically initiate operation of the device upon identification that the device is operably connected to the data processing system when not precluded from doing so by the management controller. (Ogle Fig 2 and Fig 4 and [0029] If it is determined, at step 204, that the device is not a secure device, the information handling system may power down the interface at step 206. The information handling system may also display a message to a user on a display of the information handling system informing the user that the device is not a secure device and therefore connection is not permitted. Thus, data transmission functionality of an interface of an information handling system may be configured to be disabled for all devices apart from select secure devices. [0033] Information handling systems may be configured to allow a read-write connection to secure devices that meet an enhanced security threshold. FIG. 4 illustrates an example method 400 for determining whether a device is a secure device and, subsequently, whether the secure device meets an enhanced security threshold. The information handling system may detect, at step 402, a device coupled to the interface. Then the information handling system may determine, at step 404, whether the device is secure, as described herein with respect to FIG. 2. If the device is not secure, the information handling system may, at step 412, power down the interface and display an error message. If the device is secure, the information handling system may then determine, at step 406, whether the device meets an enhanced security threshold. The enhanced security threshold may, for example, be a requirement that at least some information on the device be encrypted. If the device is secure but fails to meet the enhanced security threshold, the information handling system may connect to the device in a read-only mode, at step 410. If the device is secure and meets the enhanced security threshold, the information handling system may connect to the device in a read-write mode to allow user data to be written from the information handling system to the device and from the device to the information handling system.)
It would have been obvious to a person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ogle with the system of Hetzler to automatically initiate the operation of a usb device. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Ogle into the system of Hetzler for the purpose of establishing secure connections between information handling systems and peripheral devices. (Ogle paragraph 01)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20260010633 A1 – discloses controlling one or more peripherals of a computing device. The systems and methods may include determining whether a requested change to a secure register is authorized, adjusting a value stored in the secure register in response to determining that the requested change to the secure register is authorized. The systems and methods may include determining, at the one or more peripherals, one or more parameters of the one or more peripherals based on the value stored in the secure register and controlling a functionality of the one or more peripherals based on the one or more parameters or the value stored in the secure register.
US 11861052 B1 – discloses a hardware port may include a port meter that is electrically connected to the hardware port and configured to measure an electrical parameter associated with the hardware port. The port meter can be used to determine a value of the electrical parameter associated with the hardware port upon determining that an external device is connected to the hardware port. An operating system of the computing device receives the value measured by the port meter, and processes the value received from the port meter to determine whether an untrusted device is connected to the hardware port. If an untrusted device is connected to a hardware port, an action can be performed by the computing device, the action being aimed at protecting sensitive data otherwise accessible to the computing device.
US 20220019549 A1 – discloses protecting a system from a malicious USB device. The method includes one or more computer processors interrupting a universal serial bus (USB) enumeration process corresponding to a first USB device operatively couple to a system. The method further includes determining whether the first USB device is a human interface device (HID) based on a set of descriptor values corresponding to the first USB device. The method further includes responding to determining that that first USB device is a HID by generating a validation challenge. The method further includes presenting the validation challenge to a user of the system. The method further includes responding to determining that the user fulfils one or more actions of the validation challenge by resuming the USB enumeration process corresponding to the first USB device.
US 20200356665 A1 – discloses detection and inhibition or prevention of insider threats utilizing machine learning methods and data collection done at the physical layer are provided. Analysis is done on unknown USB-powered devices, such as a keyboard or mouse, introduced to a computing environment and, through the utilization of machine learning, the behavior of the unknown device is determined before it can potentially cause harm to the computing environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAN KAMRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3401. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/MEHRAN KAMRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
