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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu, publication number: US 2018/0234255.
As per claim 1, Fu teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium
comprising instructions that upon execution cause a system to:
validate a security module connected to a processor module using a cryptographic device identity of the security module, the security module and the processor module being part of a computing system (authenticating a platform, central processing unit coupled to TPM, [0030]);
perform a manifest certificate check based on a manifest certificate containing
information representing a security processor in the security module, and identifiers of
components in the processor module, the manifest certificate check to confirm that the
manifest certificate refers to the security module (verifying TPM, [0045], comparing T sub ID to verify TPM, [0045]);
based on determining that the manifest certificate check is successful, perform a
manifest components check comprising comparing the identifiers of the components in the processor module obtained from the manifest certificate to stored component identifiers (verifying that the certificate was sent by an app on the trusted platform, [0048-0049]);
and
based on determining that the manifest components check is successful and the
comparing producing a match, allow an operation of the computing system to continue (allowing secure communication, [0052]).
As per claim 2, Fu teaches wherein the information representing the security processor in the security module comprises a reference to a security processor certificate that is bound to the security processor in the security module (TPM, [0053], EK certificate, [0037]).
As per claim 3, Fu teaches wherein the security processor certificate comprises an endorsement key (EK) certificate, and the security processor comprises a trusted platform module (TPM) (TPM, [0053], EK certificate, [0037]).
As per claim 4, Fu teaches wherein the manifest certificate check comprises obtaining an identifier of the security processor using the security processor certificate, and comparing the obtained identifier of the security processor to an identifier of the security processor in the manifest certificate, and wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to:
generate a failure indication in response to the obtained identifier of the security
processor not matching the identifier of the security processor in the manifest certificate,
the failure indication indicating that the security module is potentially not authorized for
the processor module (Comparing, [0010][0045][0052]).
As per claim 5, Fu teaches wherein the failure indication is to trigger a check of whether use of the security module with the processor module is part of an authorized action (prevent malicious processes, [0051]).
As per claim 6, Fu teaches wherein the identifier of the security processor comprises an EK of the security processor (EK certificate, [0037]).
As per claim 7, Fu teaches wherein the cryptographic device identity is stored in the security processor during a first stage of manufacture of the computing system, and the manifest certificate is provided after the first stage of manufacture of the computing system (authentication [0052][0044][0049]).
As per claim 8, Fu teaches wherein the identifiers of the components in the processor module comprise identifiers of hardware components and identifiers of program components in the processor module (comparing T sub ID, [0045])
As per claim 9, Fu teaches wherein the manifest certificate comprises a platform certificate provided by a manufacturer of the computing system (issued by manufacturer, [0007][0044])
As per claim 10, Fu teaches wherein the stored component identifiers are included in a manifest repository (comparing T sub ID, [0045])
As per claim 11, Fu teaches wherein the instructions upon execution cause the system to:
generate a failure indication in response to the identifiers of the components
obtained from the manifest certificate not matching the stored component identifiers,
the failure indication indicating that the security module is potentially not authorized for
the processor module (preventing malicious processes, [0051]).
As per claim 12, Fu teaches wherein the manifest certificate check further comprises deriving information based on a security processor certificate of the security processor, and determining based on the derived information whether the manifest certificate refers to the security processor to which the cryptographic device identity is bound (authenticating, [0049])
As per claim 13, Fu teaches wherein the security processor certificate comprises an endorsement key (EK) certificate, and the derived information comprises an EK or a digest based on the EK certificate (authenticating EK certificate, [0049]).
As per claim 14, Fu teaches wherein the manifest certificate check comprises determining whether the manifest certificate is stored in the security module, wherein the manifest certificate check produces a failure indication if the manifest certificate is not stored in the security module, the failure indication indicating that the security module is potentially not authorized for the processor module (authenticating EK certificate, [0049]).
As per claim 15, Fu teaches wherein the cryptographic device identity comprises a device identity (DevID) certificate (verifying and authenticating using T.sub ID, [0048]).
As per claim 16, Fu teaches a method comprising:
validating, by a management system comprising a hardware processor, a security
module connected to a processor module using a cryptographic device identity of the
security module, the security module and the processor module being part of a computing system (authenticating a platform, central processing unit coupled to TPM, [0030]);
after the validating, performing, by the management system, a manifest certificate check based on a manifest certificate containing:
information representing an identifier of a security processor in the security module (verifying TPM, [0045]), and
manifest information comprising identifiers of components in the processor module,
wherein the manifest certificate check comprises:
accessing the identifier of the security processor usingg the manifest
certificate,
comparing the accessed identifier of the security processor to an identifier
of the security processor in the manifest certificate (comparing T.sub. ID to verify TPM, [0045]), and
based on the accessed identifier of the security processor matching the
identifier of the security processor in the manifest certificate, comparing the identifiers of
the components in the processor module obtained from the manifest certificate to
stored component identifiers of components that are to be included in the device computing system (verifying application, [0048-0049]); and
based on determining that the manifest certificate check is successful, allowing, by the management system, an operation of the computing system to continue (allowing application to prove trustworthiness, [0052]).
As per claim 17, Fu teaches wherein the accessing of the
identifier of the security processor using the manifest certificate comprises;
using a reference in the manifest certificate to retrieve a security processor
certificate, and
obtaining the identifier of the security processor from the security processor
certificate, and
wherein the identifier of the security processor comprises an endorsement key (EK) of the security processor (EK certificate, [0037]).
As per claim 18, Fu teaches comprising:
generating, by the management system, a failure indication in response to:
the accessed identifier of the security processor not matching the identifier
of the security processor in the manifest certificate, or
the identifiers of the components obtained from the manifest certificate not matching the stored component identifiers,
wherein the failure indication indicates that the security module is potentially not
authorized for the processor module (preventing malicious processes, [0051]).
As per claim 19, Fu teaches a management system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions executable on the
processor to:
validate a security module comprising a security processor and connected
to a processor module using a cryptographic device identity of the security module, the
security module and the processor module being part of a computing system (authenticating a platform, central processing unit coupled to TPM, [0030]);
perform a manifest certificate check based on information in a manifest
certificate, the manifest certificate containing information representing the security
processor in the security module, and identifiers of components in the processor module, and the manifest certificate check comprising:
obtaining a security processor certificate using a reference in the
manifest certificate (Verifying TPM [0045]),
determining based on information derived from the security
processor certificate whether the manifest certificate refers to the security processor to
which the cryptographic device identity is bound (Comparing T Sub ID [0045]), and
based on determining that the manifest certificate refers to the
security processor, comparing the identifiers of components in the processor module
obtained from the manifest certificate to stored component identifiers (verifying applications, [0048-0049]); and
based on determining that the manifest certificate check is successful, allow
an operation of the computing system to continue (allowing applications to prove trustworthiness, [0052]).
As per claim 20, Fu teaches wherein the cryptographic device
identity comprises a Device Identity (Dev ID) certificate, the manifest certificate comprises a platform certificate, and the security processor certificate comprises an endorsement key (EK) certificate (T. sub ID, [0045], EK certificate, [0037], root and chain of trust [0030][00035]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUGBENGA O IDOWU whose telephone number is (571)270-1450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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, Jung Kim can be reached at 5712723804. 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.
/OLUGBENGA O IDOWU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights