DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a non-final office action in response to applicant’s communication filed on 9/11/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and being considered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210273432.4, filed on 3/18/2022. The instant application is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/082037 filed on 3/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/27/2025, has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed as stated above is attached to the instant Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 11-12, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 20 recites an electronic device performing method according to claim 10. Applicant is suggested to recite the method steps rather than referring to the claim 10.
Claim 2 last line, “query permission” may read “the query permission”.
Similarly, claim 3 lines 6, 10.
Similarly, claim 12, claim 13.
Claim 11 lines 1-4 is suggested to read “An electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a program or instructions
Similarly, for claim 20.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 (similarly claim 11) recites “the REE side”, “the TEE side” in lines 5, 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is requested to clarify the clam language.
Claims 2-9, 12-19 depend on claim 1, 11 respectively, therefore are also rejected for the same reason set forth above.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al (US20210044575A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Kong”), in view of Guo (WO2021168652A1-IDS, hereinafter, “Guo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches:
A security assessment method, applied to an electronic device that supports a trusted execution environment (TEE) and a rich execution environment (REE) (Kong, discloses device and method for generating attestation certificate based on the signed certificate operating an electronic device, see [Title]/[Abstract]. And [0007] to obtain at least one piece of hardware information related to the electronic device, generate a signed certificate signing request including the at least one piece of hardware information. And [0057] an electronic device 201 (e.g., the electronic device 101) may include a secure integrated circuit (IC) 200 of a system on chip (SoC) that provides a normal execution environment (rich execution environment (REE)), a trusted execution environment (TEE), and a secure execution environment (SEE). The TEE or the SEE may have a higher security level than the REE that requires a normal security level), wherein the method comprises:
in a case that a security information query request for querying a security status of the electronic device that is sent by a server is received by the REE side (See e.g., Fig. 13 at 1310 Attestation request is received by REE from Service provider. And [0263] At step 1310, a service provider 1301 may transmit an attestation request to an electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 1201). A processor 1302 of the electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 1201) may receive the attestation request in a normal execution environment (an REE) 1303), [obtaining REE security status information] and sending the security information query request and [the REE security status information] to the TEE side (Further see Fig. 13 at 1331, and [0266] At step 1331, in the REE 1303, the processor 1302 may transfer a signed hardware information request to the TEE 1304);
obtaining target security information from the TEE side (e.g., Fig. 13, and [0267] At step 1333, in the TEE 1304, the processor 1302 may collect hardware information. Hardware information (i.e., security information) may include an IMEI, model information, manufacturer information, a serial number, a hardware ID, baseband information, or a combination thereof) and [generating comprehensive security information based on the REE security status information] and the target security information, wherein the target security information comprises TEE security status information (e.g., Fig. 13, [0268] At step 1335, in the TEE 1304, the processor 1302 may sign the hardware information, based on the application key. The processor 1302 may sign the hardware information using the private key of the application key, via an encryption module); (See Guo below for teachings of limitations in brackets above)
and sending the comprehensive security information to the server (e.g., Fig. 13 at 1370, and [0276] At step 1370, in the REE 1303, the processor 1302 may transmit the attestation record 1231 to the service provider 1301).
While Kong teaches the main concept of the claimed invention shown above, but does not specifically teach following, in the same field of endeavor Guo teaches:
obtaining REE security status information, generating comprehensive security information based on the REE security status information (Guo, teaches device and method of transmission of equipment risk assessment of terminal device generated by TA (TEE application) through RA (REE application) and providing the assessment result to requesting terminal, see [Abstract]. And refer to Fig. 6 at 603-604, and 607, and [0152] 603, the terminal device RA generates a symmetric encryption key, collected the terminal device information, and uses the symmetric encryption key to symmetrically encrypt the terminal device information (i.e., comprehensive security information based on the REE security status information)… and 607, the ORP backend generates a backend verification factor, and sends the backend verification factor to the terminal TA through the terminal device RA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Guo in the generating attestation certificate of hardware information of electronic device of Kong by generating device security data of RA and sending the assessment request with the security data of RA to TA. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to providing device fingerprint from hardware security zone of terminal device to backend terminal for security verification (Guo, [Abstract], Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a device claim that encompasses limitations that are similar to those limitations of the method claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied against claim 1. In addition, Kong teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory (e.g., see Fig. 1, Processor 120 and Memory 130).
Regarding claim 10, Kong teaches:
A security assessment method (Kong, discloses device and method for generating attestation certificate based on the signed certificate operating an electronic device, see [Title]/[Abstract]. And [0007] to obtain at least one piece of hardware information related to the electronic device, generate a signed certificate signing request including the at least one piece of hardware information), applied to a server (e.g., Fig. 12 or Fig. 13, Service provider), wherein the method comprises:
sending, to an electronic device, a security information query request for querying a security status of the electronic device (See e.g., Fig. 13 at 1310 Attestation request is received by REE from Service provider. And [0263] At step 1310, a service provider 1301 may transmit an attestation request to an electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 1201). A processor 1302 of the electronic device (e.g., the electronic device 1201) may receive the attestation request in a normal execution environment (an REE) 1303);
receiving comprehensive security information sent by the electronic device (e.g., Fig. 13 at 1370, and [0276] At step 1370, in the REE 1303, the processor 1302 may transmit the attestation record 1231 to the service provider 1301), wherein the comprehensive security information is obtained based on [REE security status information] and TEE security status information of the electronic device by the electronic device in response to the security information query request (e.g., Fig. 13, and [0267] At step 1333, in the TEE 1304, the processor 1302 may collect hardware information. Hardware information (i.e., security information) may include an IMEI, model information, manufacturer information, a serial number, a hardware ID, baseband information, or a combination thereof, and [0268] At step 1335, in the TEE 1304, the processor 1302 may sign the hardware information, based on the application key. The processor 1302 may sign the hardware information using the private key of the application key, via an encryption module), and the comprehensive security information [comprises a signature generated by the electronic device by using a private key]; (See Guo below for teachings of limitations in brackets above)
While Kong teaches the main concept of the claimed invention shown above, but does not specifically teach following, in the same field of endeavor Guo teaches:
REE security status information, comprises a signature generated by the electronic device by using a private key (Guo, teaches device and method of transmission of equipment risk assessment of terminal device generated by TA (TEE application) through RA (REE application) and providing the assessment result to requesting terminal, see [Abstract]. And refer to Fig. 6 at 603-604, and 607, [0152] 603, the terminal device RA generates a symmetric encryption key, collected the terminal device information, and uses the symmetric encryption key to symmetrically encrypt the terminal device information (i.e., comprehensive security information based on the REE security status information)… 605, the terminal RA uses the asymmetric encryption public key to perform asymmetric encryption processing…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Guo in the generating attestation certificate of hardware information of electronic device of Kong by generating device security data of RA and sending the assessment request with the security data of RA to TA. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to providing device fingerprint from hardware security zone of terminal device to backend terminal for security verification (Guo, [Abstract], Fig. 6).
The combination of Kong-Guo further teaches:
verifying the signature in the comprehensive security information (Kong, Fig. 13 at 1383, [0278] At step 1383, the service provider 1301 may verify the attestation certificate 1235, and at 1387, and [0283] At step 1387, the service provider 1301 may verify the signed hardware information 1239) by using a public key paired with the private key (Guo, Fig. 6 at 610, and [0161] Specifically, for the device identification signature SIGN2, the ORP backend can use the MD5 decryption method to obtain sk_2, then obtain the public key pk_2 corresponding to sk_2 in the key pair. Examiner further notes, it is well known in the arts that in public key infrastructure, data encrypted using public key of the key pair can be decrypted (i.e., verified) with the corresponding private key, similarly, data encrypted using private key of the key pair can be decrypted (i.e., verified) with the corresponding public key);
Guo further teaches: and if verification is successful, providing a target-service service to the electronic device (Guo, Fig. 6 at 611-612, and [0163] 611, if the verification is successful, the ORP backend generates a device fingerprint and a token… and send to terminal device RA).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is a device claim that encompasses limitations that are similar to those limitations of the method claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale and motivation as applied against claim 10. In addition, Kong teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory (e.g., see Fig. 1, Processor 120 and Memory 130).
Regarding claim 4, similarly claim 14, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 1, the electronic device according to claim 11,
Guo further teaches: wherein the generating comprehensive security information based on the REE security status information and the target security information comprises: generating a security status assessment result of the electronic device based on the REE security status information and the TEE security status information; and generating the comprehensive security information based on the security status assessment result (Guo, [Abstract] providing the assessment result to requesting terminal. And [0152] 603, the terminal device RA generates a symmetric encryption key, collected the terminal device information, and uses the symmetric encryption key to symmetrically encrypt the terminal device information (i.e., comprehensive security information based on the REE security status information)… and 607, the ORP backend generates a backend verification factor, and sends the backend verification factor to the terminal TA through the terminal device RA). Same motivation as presented in claim 1, 11 would apply.
Regarding claim 6, similarly claim 16, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 4, the electronic device according to claim 14,
Guo further teaches: wherein the TEE side stores a security status assessment model, and the generating a security status assessment result of the electronic device based on the REE security status information and the TEE security status information comprises: performing security status assessment on the REE security status information and the TEE security status information by using the security status assessment model, and generating the security status assessment result of the electronic device (Guo, Fig. 6, steps 603 to 609 as presented in claim 1). Same motivation as presented in claim 1, 11 would apply.
Regarding claim 9, similarly claim 19, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 1, the electronic device according to claim 11,
Kong-Guo combination further teaches: wherein the REE security status information and the TEE security status information each comprise at least one of the following: application access control information, file system access control information, data encryption information (e.g., Kong, Fig. 13, from 1320 to 1337 involves encryption for signing the hardware information at TEE, and Guo, Fig. 6 at 604 involves asymmetric encryption at RA (REE)), data integrity protection information, security lock screen and authentication information, integrity verification information of device configuration files, whether there is malware or virus in a system, whether configuration of hardware and firmware has been tampered with, whether a system software version meets requirements, whether the system is rooted, whether a memory has been attacked, whether a kernel and kernel configuration have been tampered with, or whether a network connection is secure.
Claims 2-3, 7, 12-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong-Guo as applied above to claim 1, 11 respectively, further in view of Li et al (US20200151320A1, hereinafter, “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, similarly claim 12, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 1, the electronic device according to claim 11,
The combination of Kong-Guo does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Li teaches:
wherein in a case that the security information query request comprises an identifier of a client application program, before the obtaining target security information, the method further comprises: verifying, on the TEE side based on the identifier of the client application program, whether the client application program has query permission; and the obtaining target security information comprises: obtaining the target security information if the client application program has query permission (Li, discloses method and terminal for trusted application access control to trusted application of TEE, see [Abstract]. And [0099] After receiving the request for accessing the target TA, the TEE of the terminal may match the CA identifier of the CA that initiates the request with the whitelist. If an entry corresponding to the CA identifier exists in the whitelist, and a corresponding target TA interface exists in the entry, it indicates that the CA has permission to access the target TA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Li in the generating attestation certificate of hardware information of electronic device of Kong-Guo by access control of client application to target trusted application using permission. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control access to the trusted security application based on service level of the CA in the TEE to improve security of accessing the target trusted application (Li, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 3, similarly claim 13, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 1, the electronic device according to claim 11,
The combination of Kong-Guo does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Li teaches:
wherein in a case that the security information query request comprises an identifier of a client application program [and an authorization token], before the obtaining target security information, the method further comprises: verifying, on the TEE side based on the identifier of the client application program, whether the client application program has query permission, [and verifying, on the TEE side, whether the authorization token is valid]; and the obtaining target security information comprises: obtaining the target security information if the client application program has query permission [and the authorization token is valid] (Li, discloses method and terminal for trusted application access control to trusted application of TEE, see [Abstract]. And [0099] After receiving the request for accessing the target TA, the TEE of the terminal may match the CA identifier of the CA that initiates the request with the whitelist. If an entry corresponding to the CA identifier exists in the whitelist, and a corresponding target TA interface exists in the entry, it indicates that the CA has permission to access the target TA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Li in the generating attestation certificate of hardware information of electronic device of Kong-Guo by access control of client application to target trusted application using permission. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control access to the trusted security application based on service level of the CA in the TEE to improve security of accessing the target trusted application (Li, [Abstract]).
Guo further teaches: an authorization token, verifying, on the TEE side, whether the authorization token is valid (Guo, [0085] 205,The terminal device receives the token sent by the risk probe server, and stores the token on the terminal device. And [0144] 507, the ORP backend generates a device fingerprint and a token corresponding to the device fingerprint based on the terminal device information and [0146] 508, The terminal device RA received the token sent by the ORP backend). Same motivation as presented in claim 1, 11 would apply.
Regarding claim 7, similarly claim 17, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 1, the electronic device according to claim 11,
The combination of Kong-Guo does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Li teaches:
further comprising: in a case that security capability configuration information sent by a target server is received, performing configuration updating on a security capability of the electronic device according to the security capability configuration information; or in a case that security status assessment model configuration information sent by a target server is received, performing configuration updating on a security status assessment model of the electronic device according to the security status assessment model configuration information (Li, discloses method and terminal for trusted application access control to trusted application of TEE, see [Abstract]. And [0053] For example, the security memory may store a TA interface control method from the TAM, or may also store a predefined TA interface control method. The TEE can access the general-purpose hardware part and the security memory, and the REE can only access the general-purpose hardware part. For example, when the terminal is configured with the TEE when delivered from a factory, the predefined access rule or the TA interface control method may be stored in the security memory, and after being delivered from a factory, the TEE may be updated according to the access rule or the TA interface control method sent by the TAM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Li in the generating attestation certificate of hardware information of electronic device of Kong-Guo by updating TEE with access rule or TA interface control. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control access to the trusted security application based on service level of the CA in the TEE to improve security of accessing the target trusted application (Li, [Abstract]).
Claims 5, 8, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong-Guo as applied above to claim 4, 14 respectively, further in view of Wang et al (US20210359867A1, hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, similarly claim 15, Kong-Guo combination teaches the method according to claim 4, the electronic device according to claim 14,
The combination of Kong-Guo does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Wang teaches:
wherein the target security information further comprises security capability information of the electronic device; and the generating the comprehensive security information based on the security status assessment result comprises: performing digital signature on the security capability information and the security status assessment result by using a private key of the electronic device; and generating the comprehensive security information based on the security capability information, the security status assessment result, and a signature (Wang, discloses techniques for terminal security verification, see [Abstract] A capability enabling method and apparatus are provided, to resolve a prior-art problem that security of executing a service by using a TEE +SE security architecture cannot be ensured. In this application, an SE establishes, with a TEE, a session used for communication. The SE sends, to the TEE by using the session, an obtaining instruction used to obtain a security certificate of the TEE… and [0002]. And [0008] the TEE may perform a digital signature … operation on the attribute information of the TEE by using a key, to generate the security certificate. The generated security certificate may include the attribute information of the TEE. The key may include a private key of the TEE … And [0040] For a service conducted based on a TEE+SE security architecture, a TEE usually provides a TUI capability. For example, in the financial field, the central bank's mobile phone shield specification specifically requires that security of password input and a signature content display interface should be ensured by using a TUI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Wang in the generating attestation certificate of hardware information of electronic device of Kong-Guo by providing capability enabling method of executing a service by using a TEE+SE security architecture. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure security of executing a service by a terminal (Wang, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 8, similarly claim 18, Kong-Guo-Wang combination teaches the method according to claim 5, the electronic device according to claim 15,
Wang further teaches: wherein the security capability information comprises at least one of the following: trusted execution environment information, trusted user interaction information, hardware encryption and decryption information, security unit information, memory encryption information, anti-side channel attack information, or anti-fault injection attack information (Wang, [0010] In a possible design, the second capability of the TEE may include a trusted user interface (trusted user interface, TUI) capability). Same motivation as represented in claim 5, 15 would apply.
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Cammarota et al (US20200320206A1) discloses systems and methods to prevent unauthorized release of information associated with a function as a service operates on encrypted data within a TEE.
You et al (US10664578B2) discloses method that inputs/outputs security information to/from an electronic device between normal world (REE) and secure world (TEE).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. 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.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436