DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/19/2024 having claims 1-11 pending.
Claims 1-11 are examined and being considered on the merits.
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 .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
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. TW 113128550, filed on 07/31/2024.
Specification
The Specification filed on 09/19/2024 are accepted for examination purpose.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 09/19/2024 are accepted for examination purpose.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 (similar for claim 11) is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites, “the data storage device unlocks the self-encrypting function according to the decryption command or the authorization information, to retrieve an operation authority of at least one storage section in the data storage device”. However, it is unclear how receiving decrypting command or authorization information can result a data storage device to unlock a self-encrypting function as the claim language does not provide any description on the steps or mechanism by which such unlocking occurs. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the term, “unlock”, will be treated as a hardware-level operation that involves authenticating user credentials to enable access to the encrypted storage media, or a particular region of the storage in light of the self-encrypting devices technology field and in compliance with the TCG Opal Specification
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wireless communication module receives a wireless signal” in claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification on paragraphs 0005 and 0023, at best describe “… a control unit 20, connected to the data storage device 10 through a first signal connection SCN1; and a wireless communication module 30, connected to the control unit 20 through a second signal connection SCN2. The wireless communication module 30 receives a wireless signal WLS from a first external device ODE1 …”. However, the description is vague and unclear how to link the description to each unit claimed. For examination purposes, those units will be interpreted as computing devices.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Specifically, the claim limitation, “wireless communication module”, of claims 1 and 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification on paragraphs 0005 and 0023, at best describe “… a control unit 20, connected to the data storage device 10 through a first signal connection SCN1; and a wireless communication module 30, connected to the control unit 20 through a second signal connection SCN2. The wireless communication module 30 receives a wireless signal WLS from a first external device ODE1 …”. The description provided does not disclose a corresponding structure to the claimed “wireless communication module”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 are dependent to claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan et al. (US 9,626,531) hereinafter Natarajan in view of Chen (US 2006/0089106) and further in view of Thibadeau, SR. (US 2020/0065491).
As per Claim 1, Natarajan teaches a self-encrypting storage device (Natarajan, Abstract; “Generally, this disclosure provides systems, devices, methods and computer readable media for secure control of access control enablement and activation on self-encrypting storage devices.”), comprising:
a data storage device, for storing data (Natarajan, Cols. 1-2, lines 63-1; “Generally, this disclosure provides systems, devices, methods and computer readable media for secure control of access control enablement and activation on self-encrypting storage devices. In one embodiment, the storage device may include a non-volatile memory (NVM) and a secure access control module.”) and providing a self-encrypting function for the data (Natarajan, Col. 2, lines 16-25; “The secure access control module may further include an encryption module configured to encrypt at least a portion of the NVM when access controls have been activated. The NVM may include or otherwise be configured as a Solid State Drive (SSD) or magnetic disk in a Hard Disk Drives (HDD). Any suitable method of encryption (i.e., encrypting function) may be used including, for example, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), the Data Encryption Standard (DES) and the International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA).” … Col. 3, lines 37-40; “Any required encryption or decryption of one or more portions (e.g., address ranges) of the NVM 220 may be performed by encryption module 216 as appropriate.”);
a control unit, connected to the data storage device through a first signal connection (Natarajan, Col. 3, lines 12-16; “FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram 200 of one example embodiment consistent with the present disclosure. The storage device 110 is shown to include a secure access control module 204, a storage device side interface module 108b and an NVM 220.”); and
a wireless communication module, connected to the control unit through [a second] signal connection, [wherein the wireless communication module receives a wireless signal from a first external device and converts the wireless signal into a wired signal transmitted to the control unit], wherein when the wireless signal delivers a decryption command or an authorization information corresponding to the data storage device, the data storage device unlocks the self-encrypting function according to the decryption command or the authorization information (Natarajan, Col. 2, lines 15-17; “The secure access control module may further include an encryption module configured to encrypt (i.e., using the encryption function) at least a portion of the NVM when access controls have been activated.” … Col. 2, lines 35-42; “After a successful enablement, activation may be performed to turn on the access controls so that portions of the NVM are encrypted or otherwise locked for security. Activation may also be accompanied by provisioning which is an operation to configure the access controls (e.g., provide additional authentication credentials for administrators and/or users and specify regions of the NVM for encryption, etc.).” … Col. 3, lines 29-43; “The secure access control module 204 is shown to include a command processor module 212, a verification module 214, an encryption module 216, a random number generator 218 and storage for a Security Identifier (SID) 206, PSID 208 and a Manufacturer Security Identifier (MSID) 210. The command processor module 212 may be configured to receive requests (i.e., commands) from a user or host system including a request to enable (i.e., unlock) or disable the secure access control features of the NVM 220. Any required encryption or decryption of one or more portions (e.g., address ranges) of the NVM 220 may be performed by encryption module 216 as appropriate. The command processor module 212 may also be configured to receive the associated verification credentials (SID, PSID, etc.) (i.e., authorization information) that may be required from the user for these operations.” … Col. 6, lines 41-49; “System 500 is also shown to include network interface module 540 which may include wireless communication capabilities (i.e., wireless communication module), such as, for example, cellular communications, Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), Bluetooth R), and/or Near Field Communication (NFC). The wireless communications may conform to or otherwise be compatible with any existing or yet to be developed communication standards including past, current and future version of Bluetooth R., Wi-Fi and mobile phone communication standards.” … Col. 6, lines 55-61; “System 500 is also shown to include a self-encrypting storage device with secure control 110, as described previously. Storage device 110 may further include a secure access control module (e.g., Opal) and an NVM as illustrated in FIG. 2. Interface modules 108a, 108b may also be provided to couple the storage device 110 to the host system 104 over a storage bus.” Examiner submits that Fig. 5 shows the wireless network module in direct communication (i.e., though a signal) with interface 108.), to retrieve an operation authority of at least one storage section in the data storage device.
Natarajan does not expressly teach:
… a second signal connection … wherein the wireless communication module receives a wireless signal from a first external device and converts the wireless signal into a wired signal transmitted to the control unit;
retrieve an operation authority of at least one storage section in the data storage device.
However, Chen teaches:
… a second signal connection …, wherein the wireless communication module receives a wireless signal from a first external device and converts the wireless signal into a wired signal transmitted to the control unit (Chen, Parag. [0010]; “the present invention provides another wireless adaptor, which is used together with a wireless transmitting device and a remote host to make at least a wired device able to be used in a wireless manner. The wireless adaptor includes at least a connecting port for connecting with the wired device and providing signals thereto; a wireless receiving module for receiving radio signals sent from the remote host via the wireless transmitting device to produced wire-dedicated signals” … Claim 1; “a first antenna for receiving the radio signals (i.e., first signal) and passing them to the wireless receiving device.” … Claim 5; “wherein the wireless receiving device has a second antenna, a wireless receiving module and an adaptive receiving unit, the second antenna is used to receive the radio signals (i.e., second signal) and pass them to the wireless receiving module to produce wire-dedicated signals, which are then passed to the adaptive receiving unit and converted into command signals thereby, and the command signals are passed to the remote host.”).
Natarajan and Chen are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for a device that provides enhance security for user’s data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen system into Natarajan system, with a motivation to provide a wireless module that receives wireless signal and convert it into a wired signal (Chen, Parag. [0010]).
The combination of Natarajan and Chen does not expressly teach:
retrieve an operation authority of at least one storage section in the data storage device.
However, Thibadeau, SR. teaches:
retrieve an operation authority of at least one storage section in the data storage device (Thibadeau, SR., Parag. [0023-0025]; “1. The drive's built-in cryptography requires a secret external to the drive to modify the security isolation settings inside the drive. A drive that is powered off is locked by the cryptographic security isolation mechanisms. Other security settings include ranges of logical blocks that may be independently locked or unlocked even if one or more other ranges is already unlocked or locked. 2. More than one external authentication secret, called an "authority” in the TCG specifications, can be recognized by the drive (i.e., retrieve the authority). Specifically there should be at least one Administrator Authority that the drive can authenticate and thereby be authorized to (a) create and configure the drive with ranges and cryptographic locking, and (b) create and manage a minimum number of four User authorities with limited capability to lock and unlock the individual ranges for Read/Write, Read Only, or Write Only operations. Individual ranges may have different User Authorities. Optionally they may also have different Administrator Authorities. 3. At least one range can be read without Administrator or User Authentication. In configuring this range for write operations needed to install the software, at least one Administrator Authority is required. Other ranges may be variously locked and then later unlocked for Read-Only, Read/Write, and optionally Write-Only.”).
Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for a device that provides enhance security for user’s data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thibadeau system into Natarajan-Chen system, with a motivation to provide access to the self-encrypting device and retrieve operations that are allowed to perform by a user/administrator (Thibadeau, Parag. [0023-0025]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Natarajan teaches wherein when the wireless signal includes the decryption command or the authorization information (Natarajan, Col. 3, lines 29-43; “The secure access control module 204 is shown to include a command processor module 212, a verification module 214, an encryption module 216, a random number generator 218 and storage for a Security Identifier (SID) 206, PSID 208 and a Manufacturer Security Identifier (MSID) 210. The command processor module 212 may be configured to receive requests (i.e., commands) from a user or host system including a request to enable (i.e., unlock) or disable the secure access control features of the NVM 220. Any required encryption or decryption of one or more portions (e.g., address ranges) of the NVM 220 may be performed by encryption module 216 as appropriate. The command processor module 212 may also be configured to receive the associated verification credentials (SID, PSID, etc.) (i.e., authorization information) that may be required from the user for these operations.” … Col. 6, lines 41-49; “System 500 is also shown to include network interface module 540 which may include wireless communication capabilities, such as, for example, cellular communications, Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), Bluetooth R), and/or Near Field Communication (NFC). The wireless communications may conform to or otherwise be compatible with any existing or yet to be developed communication standards including past, current and future version of Bluetooth R., Wi-Fi and mobile phone communication standards.), the data storage device performs an authorized operation on the at least one storage section according to the operation authority (Natarajan, Col. 2, lines 38-42; “Activation may also be accompanied by provisioning which is an operation to configure the access controls (e.g., provide additional authentication credentials for administrators and/or users and specify regions of the NVM for encryption, etc.).”); or,
the self-encrypting storage device further comprises a connector or a signal bridge for plugging in a second external device, wherein the control unit forms a signal channel with the second external device through the connector or the signal bridge, wherein when the wireless signal includes the decryption command or the authorization information, the second external device performs the authorized operation on the at least one storage section of the data storage device under the operation authority through the signal channel.
Examiner submits that the claim present two different alternatives/choices for communication between devices/modules and just one is required, therefore the rejection is made based on the first alternative presented in the claim.
As per claim 4, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Natarajan teaches wherein the second external device comprises: a computer, a peripheral storage device, a tablet computer, a smartphone, a display, or a printer (Natarajan, Col. 2, lines 45-52; “A host system 104 is shown coupled to a self-encrypting storage device with secure control capability 110. The secure control capability of the storage device will be described in greater detail below. In some embodiments, the host system 104 may be, for example, a desktop computer, workstation, laptop computer, convertible tablet, notebook, Smartphone, smart tablet, personal digital assistant (PDA) or mobile Internet device (MID).”).
As per claim 6, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Thibadeau, SR. teaches wherein the operation authority comprises read permission, write permission, modify permission, and execute permission ((Thibadeau, SR., Parag. [0023-0025]; “1. The drive's built-in cryptography requires a secret external to the drive to modify the security isolation settings inside the drive. A drive that is powered off is locked by the cryptographic security isolation mechanisms. Other security settings include ranges of logical blocks that may be independently locked or unlocked even if one or more other ranges is already unlocked or locked. 2. More than one external authentication secret, called an "authority” in the TCG specifications, can be recognized by the drive (i.e., retrieve the authority). Specifically there should be at least one Administrator Authority that the drive can authenticate and thereby be authorized to (a) create and configure (i.e., modify or execute permission) the drive with ranges and cryptographic locking, and (b) create and manage a minimum number of four User authorities with limited capability to lock and unlock the individual ranges for Read/Write, Read Only, or Write Only operations (i.e., modify or execute permission). Individual ranges may have different User Authorities. Optionally they may also have different Administrator Authorities. 3. At least one range can be read without Administrator or User Authentication. In configuring this range for write operations needed to install the software, at least one Administrator Authority is required. Other ranges may be variously locked and then later unlocked for Read-Only, Read/Write, and optionally Write-Only.”).
As per claim 7, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Chen teaches wherein the data is digital data or analog data (Chen, Parag. [0077]; “The components of the system can be interconnected by any form or medium of digital data communication, e.g., a communication network. Examples of communication networks include a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), e.g., the Internet.”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Chen teaches wherein the first and second signal connections are respectively a wired connection or a wireless connection (Chen, Parag. [0010; “the present invention provides another wireless adaptor, which is used together with a wireless transmitting device and a remote host to make at least a wired device able to be used in a wireless manner. The wireless adaptor includes at least a connecting port for connecting with the wired device and providing signals thereto; a wireless receiving module for receiving radio signals sent from the remote host via the wireless transmitting device to produced wire-dedicated signals”).
As per claim 9, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Natarajan teaches wherein the wireless signal comprises: NFC, Bluetooth, or other similar communication protocols (Natarajan, Col. 6, lines 41-49; “System 500 is also shown to include network interface module 540 which may include wireless communication capabilities, such as, for example, cellular communications, Wireless Fidelity (WiFi), Bluetooth R), and/or Near Field Communication (NFC). The wireless communications may conform to or otherwise be compatible with any existing or yet to be developed communication standards including past, current and future version of Bluetooth R., Wi-Fi and mobile phone communication standards.”).
As per claim 10, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1. Natarajan teaches wherein the self-encrypting function performs encryption and decryption based on at least one of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and RSA encryption standard (Natarajan, Col. 2, lines 21-25; “Any suitable method of encryption may be used including, for example, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), the Data Encryption Standard (DES) and the International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA).” … Col. 3, lines 37-40; “Any required encryption or decryption of one or more portions (e.g., address ranges) of the NVM 220 may be performed by encryption module 216 as appropriate.”).
As per claim 11, it is a method claim that recites similar limitations as presented at claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan et al. (US 9,626,531) hereinafter Natarajan in view of Chen (US 2006/0089106) and Thibadeau, SR. (US 2020/0065491) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Coffey et al. (US 2005/0057359) hereinafter Coffey.
As per claim 3, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1, [wherein the control unit determines a distance between the self-encrypting storage device and the first external device based on the strength of the wireless signal received by the wireless communication module, wherein when the distance between the self-encrypting storage device that is unlocked and the first external device is greater than a safety distance, the control unit issues a security alert].
The combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. does not discloses:
wherein the control unit determines a distance between the self-encrypting storage device and the first external device based on the strength of the wireless signal received by the wireless communication module, wherein when the distance between the self-encrypting storage device that is unlocked and the first external device is greater than a safety distance, the control unit issues a security alert.
However, Coffey teaches:
wherein the control unit determines a distance between the self-encrypting storage device and the first external device based on the strength of the wireless signal received by the wireless communication module, wherein when the distance between the self-encrypting storage device that is unlocked and the first external device is greater than a safety distance, the control unit issues a security alert (Coffey, Abstract; “A method of alerting a user that a transmitter unit is beyond a limited range of communicating wirelessly with a control unit may include, wirelessly transmitting a radio frequency signal from the transmitter unit to the control unit, determining at the control unit whether the transmitter unit is beyond the limited range of wireless communications, and selectively generating an alert at the control unit based on a result of the determination. Determining at the control unit whether the transmitter unit is beyond the limited range of wireless communications may include detecting an occurrence of a predetermined condition.” … Parag. [0008]; “The control unit may be adapted to measure a strength of a signal from the transmitter unit. In that case, detecting an occurrence of the predetermined condition may include detecting that the control unit received a signal from the transmitter unit below a predetermined signal strength level. The control unit may be adapted to store predetermined signal strength levels, and configured to allow a user to Select one of the predetermined signal strength levels. Such that the control unit generates the alert based on the signal strength selected by the user.”).
Natarajan, Chen, Thibadeau SR. and Coffey are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for a device that provides enhance security for user’s data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coffey system into Natarajan-Chen-Thibadeau SR. system, with a motivation to provide a method to determine when an external device is out of range and sending an alert to notify it (Coffey, Abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan et al. (US 9,626,531) hereinafter Natarajan in view of Chen (US 2006/0089106) and Thibadeau, SR. (US 2020/0065491) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lyakhovitskiy et al. (US 8,856,553) hereinafter Lyakhovitskiy.
As per claim 5, the combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. teach the self-encrypting storage device of claim 1, [wherein the data storage device is a self-encrypting drive compliant with TCG Opal 2.0 specification].
The combination of Natarajan, Chen and Thibadeau, SR. does not expressly teach:
wherein the data storage device is a self-encrypting drive compliant with TCG Opal 2.0 specification.
However, Lyakhovitskiy teaches:
wherein the data storage device is a self-encrypting drive compliant with TCG Opal 2.0 specification (Lyakhovitskiy, Col. 4, lines 47-55; “In the following example implementation, the self-encrypting drive is described as a Trusted Computing Group (TCG) OPAL drives. This implementation is based on draft specifications for version 2.00 with optional Single User Mode Feature Set and Additional Data Store Table Feature Set. It should be understood that any self-encrypting drive that provides security primitives, such as the locking ranges and authorities described below, in a manner similar to TCG OPAL drives could be used in an implementation.”).
Natarajan, Chen, Thibadeayu, SR. and Lyakhovitskiy are from similar field of technology. Prior to the instant application’s effective filling date, there was a need for a device that provides enhance security for user’s data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lyakhovitskiy system into Natarajan-Chen-Thibadeau SR. system, with a motivation to provide a self-encrypting device compliant with OPAL 2.0 (Lyakhovitskiy, Col. 4, lines 47-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bolotin et al. (US 10,783,232) relates to methods, systems, and computer programs are presented for remote management of self-encrypting managed devices (SEMDs) with embedded wireless authentication. One method includes providing a user interface to access a management server for managing users and devices. The SEMD is in wireless communication with the mobile device and is connection with the management server. Additionally, the management server checks user-authentication information of the user for unlocking access to the SEMD before is enabled to unlock the SEMD via mobile application of the mobile device. Further, the management server sends an unlock command to the mobile device based on the checking, the mobile device sending an unlock request to the SEMD via the wireless communication. The SEMD is configured to unlock the data channel to provide data access to encrypted storage in the SEMD.
Hannedouche et al. (US 2019/0243784) relates to systems and methods for management of a RAID system of encrypted storage drives are described. In one embodiment, the system may include self-encrypting drives (SEDs), redundant array of independent disks (RAID) chips, a drive interface bridge connecting between one of the RAID chips and a machine host, and a drive command initiator communicatively coupled to the drive interface bridge. In some embodiments, the drive command initiator may be configured to configure the one or more RAID chips in pass through mode, unlock at least one of the SEDs while the one or more RAID chips are configured in pass-through mode, and upon unlocking at least one of the SEDs, configure the one or more RAID chips to RAID mode and activate a mass storage functionality of the drive interface bridge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX D CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/A.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2498
/YIN CHEN SHAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2498