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
This Office Action is in response to the U.S. patent application 18943340 filed on November 11, 2024, and Applicant’s Amendment filed on July 06, 2026.
Of claims 1-20: no claims were canceled or added; claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 were amended; and claims 1, 15 and 20 are independent claims. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending, and have been examined in this application. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statements
The two information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 18, 2026, comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on July 6, 2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as follows.
Applicant’s arguments: “Bouaichi discloses no communication framework connecting a plurality of sender nodes to a plurality of receiver nodes. Bouaichi discloses no protected data messages sent by sender nodes and directed to receiver nodes over any such framework. Bouaichi discloses no interception of any messages traveling between a sender and a receiver in transit. Instead, the protected data manager in Bouaichi receives an inbound request from a task execution asking the coordinator to locally retrieve and decrypt previously stored credential data”
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Bouaichi does disclose a ‘communication framework connecting a plurality of sender nodes to a plurality of receiver nodes’ (Bouaichi col. 10, line 65 to col. 11, line 5, “The coordinated environments 110, client devices, and service provider environment 120 may communicate via a network 104, which may include any wired network, wireless network, or combination thereof. For example, the network 104 may be a personal area network, local area network, wide area network, over-the-air broadcast network (e.g., for radio or television), cable network, satellite network, cellular telephone network, or combination thereof.”). Further, the Examiner respectfully submits that Bouaichi does disclose ‘protected data messages sent by sender nodes and directed to receiver nodes over any such framework’, etc. (Bouaichi col. 40, lines 54-59, “the remote interface task 1202 may correspond to code executable to continuously, intermittently or periodically interact with the on-demand code execution environment 150 to retrieve task calls queued at the on-demand code execution environment 150 for execution on the coordinator 114. [NOTE: “continuously interacting” is being interpreted as meaning that ALL task calls (e.g., messages, including ALL protected messages) are intercepted and sent to the coordinator”]; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 9-36, “a coordinator may include a communication manager, …communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; [NOTE: the fact that ALL task calls (e.g., messages) are being intercepted and validated/authenticated, is being interpreted ALL task calls being “protected task calls”]).
Applicant’s arguments: “The flow in Bouaichi is thus a request-response between a local task and the coordinator, not an interception of messages in transit between sender and receiver nodes on a communication framework. Accordingly, Bouaichi discloses no architecture in which any messages are prevented from reaching their intended recipients, let alone in which all protected data messages are unconditionally prevented from being sent to receiver nodes as required by claim 1.”
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Bouaichi does disclose ‘interception of messages in transit between sender and receiver nodes on a communication framework’ (Bouaichi col. 40, lines 54-59, “the remote interface task 1202 may correspond to code executable to continuously, intermittently or periodically interact with the on-demand code execution environment 150 to retrieve task calls queued at the on-demand code execution environment 150 for execution on the coordinator 114. [NOTE: “continuously interacting” is being interpreted as meaning that ALL task calls (e.g., messages, including ALL protected messages) are intercepted and sent to the coordinator”]) and ‘all protected data messages are …prevented from being sent to receiver nodes’ (Bouaichi col 48, lines 55-59, “if the protected data manager 261 determines that the execution of Task A 1902 is not authorized to access the requested data, the protected data manager 261 may return an error message and/or terminate the process illustrated in FIG. 19.” [NOTE: “terminating the process” for even a single task (e.g., message) effectively results in “preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes”]). Finally, it is respectfully noted that “unconditionally” does not explicitly appear anywhere within the independent claims, and even if it did appear, the rebuttal above would remain the same.
Applicant’s arguments: “Claim I further recites "performing a verification process of the secure communication protocol to verify the protected data messages sequentially in time as intercepted over time." Bouaichi discloses no secure communication protocol governing real-time data message transmission between nodes, and discloses no verification process defined by any such protocol. The Office Action points to the protected data manager's determination of whether a task execution is authorized to access stored credential data based on a security token. This authorization check is a credential access control determination, it is not a verification process of a secure communication protocol applied to messages intercepted sequentially in time. The two operations are technically and functionally distinct.”
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Bouaichi does disclose ‘a verification process of the secure communication protocol to verify the protected data messages’ (Bouaichi col. 8, lines 9-36, “a coordinator may include a communication manager, …communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”). “Format” includes “protocols” (Bouaichi col. 26, lines 1-2, “obtain calls in a first format (e.g., HTTP)”).
Applicant’s arguments: “Claim I further recites extracting data content from the respective protected data messages that are verified according to the verification process, and providing that data content to the one or more receiver nodes via the communication framework. Bouaichi discloses returning decrypted credential data to the requesting task execution in response to a successful authorization check. This is a response to an on-demand access request for stored credentials, it is not extraction of data content from intercepted protocol messages that have been verified according to a secure communication protocol, nor is it providing that extracted content to receiver nodes via a communication framework in lieu of direct message delivery. No combination of Bouaichi's teachings meets the full scope of claim 1.”
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Bouaichi does disclose ‘extracting data content from the respective protected data messages that are verified according to the verification process, and providing that data content to the one or more receiver nodes via the communication framework.’ (Bouaichi col. 40, lines 27-44, “At (2), the on-demand code execution environment 150 identifies a coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Illustratively, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may extract the identifying information for the coordinator 114 from the call, in order to determine a particular coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Thereafter, at (3), the on-demand code execution environment 150 enqueues the call in a queue of calls awaiting retrieval by the coordinator 114 … In some instances, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may operate the queue according to a first-in-first-out scheduling algorithm.”; [NOTE: “coordinator 114 is being interpreted as a “receiver”]).
Applicant’s arguments: “Walker discloses no interception of protected data messages sent by sender nodes and directed to receiver nodes over a communication framework, and discloses no architecture in which a data processing device prevents all such messages from reaching their intended receivers.”
The Examiner traverses such arguments. More particularly, the Examiner respectfully notes that the Walker reference was not applied for showing Applicant’s mentioned features, and instead, Walker was applied for disclosing differing features of ones of the dependent claims.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended; details in the specification be incorporated, to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 272-2642 to schedule an interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 5, 12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bouaichi et al. (“Bouaichi”; US11200331B1).
Per claim 1: Bouaichi taught a computer-implemented method, performed by a data processing device of a system comprising a plurality of nodes respectively connected to one another via a communication framework (Bouaichi col. 17, lines 1-7, “the service provider environment 120 may be implemented directly in hardware or software executed by hardware devices and may, for instance, include one or more physical or virtual servers implemented on physical computer hardware configured to execute computer executable instructions for performing various features that will be described herein.”; Bouaichi col. 30, lines 4-6, “a scheduler 256 may communicate with multiple resource managers 254 across different devices”), comprising:
intercepting all protected data messages sent by one or more sender nodes of the plurality of nodes via the communication framework and directed to one or more receiver nodes of the plurality of nodes, the protected data messages being configured in accordance with a secure communication protocol (Bouaichi col. 49, line 62, to col. 50, line 2, “the protected data manager 261 receives a protected data request message from the communication manager 260. In some instances, the protected data request message may include security token data associated with the task execution requesting access to the protected data and/or an identifier associated with the protected data requested by the task execution.”Bouaichi col. 43, lines 21-26, “With reference to FIG. 17, illustrative interactions are depicted for downloading protected data from the service provider environment 120 and storing the protected data in a storage device within a coordinated environment 110 (e.g., on a storage device connected to the coordinator 114 or accessible by the coordinator 114 over a local area network).”; Bouaichi col. 3, lines 39-41, “The coordinator may further enable communication among coordinated devices and tasks according to a number of different protocols”; Bouaichi col. 4, lines 20-22, “these requests and device communications may also utilize different communication protocols.”; Bouaichi col. 40, lines 54-59, “the remote interface task 1202 may correspond to code executable to continuously, intermittently or periodically interact with the on-demand code execution environment 150 to retrieve task calls queued at the on-demand code execution environment 150 for execution on the coordinator 114. [NOTE: “continuously interacting” is being interpreted as meaning that ALL task calls (e.g., messages, including ALL protected messages) are intercepted and sent to the coordinator”]; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 9-36, “a coordinator may include a communication manager, …communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; [NOTE: the fact that ALL task calls (e.g., messages) are being intercepted and validated/authenticated, is being interpreted ALL task calls being “protected task calls”]), wherein the intercepting comprises preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes (Bouaichi col 48, lines 55-59, “if the protected data manager 261 determines that the execution of Task A 1902 is not authorized to access the requested data, the protected data manager 261 may return an error message and/or terminate the process illustrated in FIG. 19.” [NOTE: “terminating the process” for even a single task (e.g., message) effectively results in “preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes”]);
performing a verification process of the secure communication protocol to verify the protected data messages sequentially in time as intercepted over time (Bouaichi col. 44, lines 20-24, “some implementations, the protected data includes authentication credentials for services local to the coordinated environment 110 and/or remote services provided by the service provider environment 120.”; Bouaichi col. 47, lines 55-57, “the protected data request message may include the security token data and/or the identifier associated with the protected data as a header”; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 31-36, “The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; Bouaichi col. 50, lines 8-20, “protected data manager 261 determines whether the task execution is authorized to access the requested protected data. For example, the protected data manager 261 may determine that the task execution is authorized to access the requested protected data based on the data included in the protected data request message. For example, the security token data associated with the task execution and/or the identifier associated with the protected data requested by the task execution. In such an example, the protected data manager 261 may determine that the task execution is authorized based on the security token data and the identifier associated with the protected data.”; Bouaichi col. 47, lines 29-31, “In some embodiments, the identifiers assigned to the executions are sequential.”; Bouaichi col. 7, lines 56-59, “if change a occurred before change b, regardless of where such change occurred, change a would be applied to the device shadow of the coordinator, and then change b would be applied)”);
for respective protected data messages that are verified according to the verification process, extracting data content from the respective protected data messages that are verified (Bouaichi col. 8, lines 31-36, “The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; Bouaichi col. 40, lines 27-44, “At (2), the on-demand code execution environment 150 identifies a coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Illustratively, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may extract the identifying information for the coordinator 114 from the call, in order to determine a particular coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Thereafter, at (3), the on-demand code execution environment 150 enqueues the call in a queue of calls awaiting retrieval by the coordinator 114 … In some instances, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may operate the queue according to a first-in-first-out scheduling algorithm.”; [NOTE: “coordinator 114 is being interpreted as a “receiver”];.Bouaichi’s FIG. 20, see “Decrypt Protected Data 2014 in “Yes” branch, downstream from “Authorized 2004”; Bouaichi col. 49, lines31-39, “At (7), the protected data manager 261 reads the encrypted protected data requested by the execution of Task A 1902. The protected data manager 261 may identify the protected data based on the identifier associated with the requested protected data. At (8), the protected data manager 261 decrypts the protected data using the decrypted data key received from the key manager 262. At (9), the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260.”); and
providing the data content of the respective protected data messages that are verified to the one or more receiver nodes via the communication framework (Bouaichi col. 49, lines 37-43, “the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260. (170) At (10), the communication manager 260 generates a response to the request messages of Task A 1902, including the protected data decrypted by the protected data manager 261 at (8), and returns the response to the Task A 1902.”; Bouaichi col. 49, lines31-39, “At (7), the protected data manager 261 reads the encrypted protected data requested by the execution of Task A 1902. The protected data manager 261 may identify the protected data based on the identifier associated with the requested protected data. At (8), the protected data manager 261 decrypts the protected data using the decrypted data key received from the key manager 262. At (9), the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260.”; Bouaichi, see “Transmit Decrypted Protected Data 2016 in “Yes” branch, downstream from “Authorized 2004”; [NOTE: “sender node” and “receiver node” are being interpreted broadly to encompass any type of node, including, for example, the “protected data manager 261”, “communication manager 260”, etc., and to encompass a situation wherein even a single node serves as both the “sender node” and “receiver node”, as nothing within the claim limits the “sender node” and/or “receiver node” to any specific type of node, or that the “sender node” and “receiver node” be “mutually different nodes” from one another.]).
Per claim 2: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 1. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein the protected data messages comprise different types of messages, and wherein performing a verification process comprises performing different instances of the verification process for each type of the different types of messages, the different instances respectively tailored to the different types of messages (Bouaichi col. 11, lines 11-23, “The network 104 may include one or more wireless networks, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network, a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, or any other type of wireless network. The network 104 can use protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of networks. For example, the protocols used by the network 104 may include Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), HTTP Secure (HTTPS), MQTT, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), and the like. Protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of communication networks”; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 18-36, “The communication manager may support a number of inter-task communication or inter-process communication (IPC) protocols, such that tasks may communicate with one another despite potential incompatibilities between the tasks. … The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call,”);.
Per claim 3: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 2. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise a plurality of sender nodes and wherein the different types of messages correspond to different sender nodes of the plurality of sender nodes (Bouaichi col. 19, lines 38-55, “a first communication manager task 286 may be configured to manage communications using a BLUETOOTH™ protocol, a second communication manager may be configured to manage communications using an HTTP protocol, etc. In some instances, multiple communication manager tasks 286 may work collectively to implement communications. For example, a first communication manager task 286 may enable communications via the TCP protocol, while a second communication manager task 286 may enable communications via the MQTT protocol (which utilizes the TCP protocol and thus may utilize the a first communication manager task 286). Because different communication manager tasks 286 can vary the ability of the coordinator 114 to communicate via different protocols, and because the tasks of the coordinator 114 may be altered via reconfiguration of the coordinator 114, the coordinator 114 can be rapidly reconfigured to utilize a variety of different communication protocols.”).
Per claim 5: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 2. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein the different instances of the verification process employ different activation frequencies respectively tailored to the different types of messages (Bouaichi col. 7, lines 26-29, “execution environments of low priority tasks may be suspended to release compute resources to a high priority tasks, and resumed in accordance with a scheduling algorithm.”; Bouaichi col. 17, lines 62-65, “scheduler 256 may include instructions to select a tasks for execution at given points in time and to suspend execution of tasks (e.g., under instances of constrained resources at the coordinator 114)”; Bouaichi col. 26, lines 59-64, “scheduler 256 processes the work item queue 802 to determine what work items, if any, to dequeue and process. The scheduler 256 may utilize any number of scheduling algorithms in processing the work item queue 802, and may utilize a number of inputs in conducting the scheduling algorithm”; “Bouaichi col. 27, lines 29-33,” select an order and timing in which to process such calls. The scheduler 256 can therefore enable orderly processing of calls to execute tasks, even when the number of calls received would otherwise overwhelm the compute resources of the coordinator 114.”).
Per claim 12: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 1. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein the system is integrated on or within a vehicle (Bouaichi col. 10, lines 12-15, “a car manufacturer may gather limited data regarding the operation of its cars, and analyze the data to assist in development of assisted driving technologies for these cars.”).
Per claim 15: Bouaichi taught a system, comprising:
a plurality of nodes respectively connected to one another via a communication framework; a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations (Bouaichi col. 17, lines 1-7, “the service provider environment 120 may be implemented directly in hardware or software executed by hardware devices and may, for instance, include one or more physical or virtual servers implemented on physical computer hardware configured to execute computer executable instructions for performing various features that will be described herein.”; Bouaichi col. 30, lines 4-6, “a scheduler 256 may communicate with multiple resource managers 254 across different devices”), comprising:
intercepting all protected data messages sent by one or more sender nodes of the plurality of nodes via the communication framework and directed to one or more receiver nodes of the plurality of nodes, the protected data messages being configured in accordance with a secure communication protocol (Bouaichi col. 49, line 62, to col. 50, line 2, “the protected data manager 261 receives a protected data request message from the communication manager 260. In some instances, the protected data request message may include security token data associated with the task execution requesting access to the protected data and/or an identifier associated with the protected data requested by the task execution.”Bouaichi col. 43, lines 21-26, “With reference to FIG. 17, illustrative interactions are depicted for downloading protected data from the service provider environment 120 and storing the protected data in a storage device within a coordinated environment 110 (e.g., on a storage device connected to the coordinator 114 or accessible by the coordinator 114 over a local area network).”; Bouaichi col. 3, lines 39-41, “The coordinator may further enable communication among coordinated devices and tasks according to a number of different protocols”; Bouaichi col. 4, lines 20-22, “these requests and device communications may also utilize different communication protocols.”; Bouaichi col. 40, lines 54-59, “the remote interface task 1202 may correspond to code executable to continuously, intermittently or periodically interact with the on-demand code execution environment 150 to retrieve task calls queued at the on-demand code execution environment 150 for execution on the coordinator 114. [NOTE: “continuously interacting” is being interpreted as meaning that ALL task calls (e.g., messages, including ALL protected messages) are intercepted and sent to the coordinator”]; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 9-36, “a coordinator may include a communication manager, …communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; [NOTE: the fact that ALL task calls (e.g., messages) are being intercepted and validated/authenticated, is being interpreted ALL task calls being “protected task calls”]), wherein the intercepting comprises preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes (Bouaichi col 48, lines 55-59, “if the protected data manager 261 determines that the execution of Task A 1902 is not authorized to access the requested data, the protected data manager 261 may return an error message and/or terminate the process illustrated in FIG. 19.” [NOTE: “terminating the process” for even a single task (e.g., message) effectively results in “preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes”]);
performing a verification process of the secure communication protocol to verify the protected data messages sequentially in time as intercepted over time (Bouaichi col. 44, lines 20-24, “some implementations, the protected data includes authentication credentials for services local to the coordinated environment 110 and/or remote services provided by the service provider environment 120.”; Bouaichi col. 47, lines 55-57, “the protected data request message may include the security token data and/or the identifier associated with the protected data as a header”; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 31-36, “The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; Bouaichi col. 50, lines 8-20, “protected data manager 261 determines whether the task execution is authorized to access the requested protected data. For example, the protected data manager 261 may determine that the task execution is authorized to access the requested protected data based on the data included in the protected data request message. For example, the security token data associated with the task execution and/or the identifier associated with the protected data requested by the task execution. In such an example, the protected data manager 261 may determine that the task execution is authorized based on the security token data and the identifier associated with the protected data.”; Bouaichi col. 47, lines 29-31, “In some embodiments, the identifiers assigned to the executions are sequential.”; Bouaichi col. 7, lines 56-59, “if change a occurred before change b, regardless of where such change occurred, change a would be applied to the device shadow of the coordinator, and then change b would be applied)”);
for respective protected data messages that are verified according to the verification process, extracting data content from the respective protected data messages that are verified (Bouaichi col. 8, lines 31-36, “The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; Bouaichi col. 40, lines 27-44, “At (2), the on-demand code execution environment 150 identifies a coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Illustratively, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may extract the identifying information for the coordinator 114 from the call, in order to determine a particular coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Thereafter, at (3), the on-demand code execution environment 150 enqueues the call in a queue of calls awaiting retrieval by the coordinator 114 … In some instances, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may operate the queue according to a first-in-first-out scheduling algorithm.”; [NOTE: “coordinator 114 is being interpreted as a “receiver”]; Bouaichi’s FIG. 20, see “Decrypt Protected Data 2014 in “Yes” branch, downstream from “Authorized 2004”; Bouaichi col. 49, lines31-39, “At (7), the protected data manager 261 reads the encrypted protected data requested by the execution of Task A 1902. The protected data manager 261 may identify the protected data based on the identifier associated with the requested protected data. At (8), the protected data manager 261 decrypts the protected data using the decrypted data key received from the key manager 262. At (9), the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260.”); and
providing the data content of the respective protected data messages that are verified to the one or more receiver nodes via the communication framework (Bouaichi col. 49, lines 37-43, “the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260. (170) At (10), the communication manager 260 generates a response to the request messages of Task A 1902, including the protected data decrypted by the protected data manager 261 at (8), and returns the response to the Task A 1902.”; Bouaichi col. 49, lines31-39, “At (7), the protected data manager 261 reads the encrypted protected data requested by the execution of Task A 1902. The protected data manager 261 may identify the protected data based on the identifier associated with the requested protected data. At (8), the protected data manager 261 decrypts the protected data using the decrypted data key received from the key manager 262. At (9), the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260.”; Bouaichi, see “Transmit Decrypted Protected Data 2016 in “Yes” branch, downstream from “Authorized 2004”; [NOTE: “sender node” and “receiver node” are being interpreted broadly to encompass any type of node, including, for example, the “protected data manager 261”, “communication manager 260”, etc., and to encompass a situation wherein even a single node serves as both the “sender node” and “receiver node”, as nothing within the claim limits the “sender node” and/or “receiver node” to any specific type of node, or that the “sender node” and “receiver node” be “mutually different nodes” from one another.]).
Per claim 16: Bouaichi taught the system of claim 15. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein the protected data messages comprise different types of messages, and wherein performing a verification process comprises performing different instances of the verification process for each type of the different types, the different instances respectively tailored to the different types of messages, and wherein at least some of the different instances of the verification process employ different activation frequencies respectively tailored to the different types of messages (Bouaichi col. 11, lines 11-23, “The network 104 may include one or more wireless networks, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network, a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, or any other type of wireless network. The network 104 can use protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of networks. For example, the protocols used by the network 104 may include Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), HTTP Secure (HTTPS), MQTT, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), and the like. Protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of communication networks”; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 18-36, “The communication manager may support a number of inter-task communication or inter-process communication (IPC) protocols, such that tasks may communicate with one another despite potential incompatibilities between the tasks. … The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call,”).
Per claim 17: Bouaichi taught the system of claim 16. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein providing the data content comprises publishing, via the communication framework, the data content to the memory or another memory of the system with timestamps respectively indicating timing of interception of corresponding messages of the respective messages, wherein the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content from the memory or the other memory via the communication framework (Bouaichi col. 11, lines 11-23, “The network 104 may include one or more wireless networks, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) network, a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network, a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network, or any other type of wireless network. The network 104 can use protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of networks. For example, the protocols used by the network 104 may include Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), HTTP Secure (HTTPS), MQTT, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), and the like. Protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of communication networks”; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 18-36, “The communication manager may support a number of inter-task communication or inter-process communication (IPC) protocols, such that tasks may communicate with one another despite potential incompatibilities between the tasks. … The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call,”).
Per claim 20: Bouaichi taught a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a system comprising a plurality of nodes respectively connected to one another via the communication framework, facilitate performance of operations (Bouaichi col. 17, lines 1-7, “the service provider environment 120 may be implemented directly in hardware or software executed by hardware devices and may, for instance, include one or more physical or virtual servers implemented on physical computer hardware configured to execute computer executable instructions for performing various features that will be described herein.”; Bouaichi col. 30, lines 4-6, “a scheduler 256 may communicate with multiple resource managers 254 across different devices”), comprising:
intercepting all protected data messages sent by one or more sender nodes of the plurality of nodes via the communication framework and directed to one or more receiver nodes of the plurality of nodes, the protected data messages being configured in accordance with a secure communication protocol (Bouaichi col. 49, line 62, to col. 50, line 2, “the protected data manager 261 receives a protected data request message from the communication manager 260. In some instances, the protected data request message may include security token data associated with the task execution requesting access to the protected data and/or an identifier associated with the protected data requested by the task execution.”Bouaichi col. 43, lines 21-26, “With reference to FIG. 17, illustrative interactions are depicted for downloading protected data from the service provider environment 120 and storing the protected data in a storage device within a coordinated environment 110 (e.g., on a storage device connected to the coordinator 114 or accessible by the coordinator 114 over a local area network).”; Bouaichi col. 3, lines 39-41, “The coordinator may further enable communication among coordinated devices and tasks according to a number of different protocols”; Bouaichi col. 4, lines 20-22, “these requests and device communications may also utilize different communication protocols.”; Bouaichi col. 40, lines 54-59, “the remote interface task 1202 may correspond to code executable to continuously, intermittently or periodically interact with the on-demand code execution environment 150 to retrieve task calls queued at the on-demand code execution environment 150 for execution on the coordinator 114. [NOTE: “continuously interacting” is being interpreted as meaning that ALL task calls (e.g., messages, including ALL protected messages) are intercepted and sent to the coordinator”]; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 9-36, “a coordinator may include a communication manager, …communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; [NOTE: the fact that ALL task calls (e.g., messages) are being intercepted and validated/authenticated, is being interpreted ALL task calls being “protected task calls”]), wherein the intercepting comprises preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes (Bouaichi col 48, lines 55-59, “if the protected data manager 261 determines that the execution of Task A 1902 is not authorized to access the requested data, the protected data manager 261 may return an error message and/or terminate the process illustrated in FIG. 19.” [NOTE: “terminating the process” for even a single task (e.g., message) effectively results in “preventing sending all of the protected data messages to the one or more receiver nodes”]);
performing a verification process of the secure communication protocol to verify the protected data messages sequentially in time as intercepted over time (Bouaichi col. 44, lines 20-24, “some implementations, the protected data includes authentication credentials for services local to the coordinated environment 110 and/or remote services provided by the service provider environment 120.”; Bouaichi col. 47, lines 55-57, “the protected data request message may include the security token data and/or the identifier associated with the protected data as a header”; Bouaichi col. 8, lines 31-36, “The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; Bouaichi col. 50, lines 8-20, “protected data manager 261 determines whether the task execution is authorized to access the requested protected data. For example, the protected data manager 261 may determine that the task execution is authorized to access the requested protected data based on the data included in the protected data request message. For example, the security token data associated with the task execution and/or the identifier associated with the protected data requested by the task execution. In such an example, the protected data manager 261 may determine that the task execution is authorized based on the security token data and the identifier associated with the protected data.”; Bouaichi col. 47, lines 29-31, “In some embodiments, the identifiers assigned to the executions are sequential.”; Bouaichi col. 7, lines 56-59, “if change a occurred before change b, regardless of where such change occurred, change a would be applied to the device shadow of the coordinator, and then change b would be applied)”);
for respective protected data messages that are verified according to the verification process, extracting data content from the respective protected data messages that are verified (Bouaichi col. 8, lines 31-36, “The communication manager may then validate the call, such as by authenticating the first task execution and verifying a format and content of the call, and if valid, may transmit the call to a scheduler (e.g., via an API of the scheduler) for processing on the coordinator.”; Bouaichi col. 40, lines 27-44, “At (2), the on-demand code execution environment 150 identifies a coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Illustratively, the on-demand code execution environment 150 may extract the identifying information for the coordinator 114 from the call, in order to determine a particular coordinator 114 to which the call should be transmitted. Thereafter, at (3), the on-demand code execution environment 150 enqueues the call in a queue of calls awaiting retrieval by the coordinator 114; [NOTE: “coordinator 114 is being interpreted as a “receiver”]; Bouaichi’s FIG. 20, see “Decrypt Protected Data 2014 in “Yes” branch, downstream from “Authorized 2004”; Bouaichi col. 49, lines31-39, “At (7), the protected data manager 261 reads the encrypted protected data requested by the execution of Task A 1902. The protected data manager 261 may identify the protected data based on the identifier associated with the requested protected data. At (8), the protected data manager 261 decrypts the protected data using the decrypted data key received from the key manager 262. At (9), the protected data manager 261 returns the decrypted protected data to the communication manager 260.”); and
publishing, via the communication framework, the data content of the respective protected data messages that are verified to a memory of the system with timestamps respectively indicating timing of interception of corresponding messages of the respective messages, wherein the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content from the memory via the communication framework (CN’219, page 13, underlined portion, “the compromising index further comprises time of intercepting message, besides, in the process of intercepting the message, or corresponding to those messages and specifies the timestamp of the interception time of those messages stored in the log.”).
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 4, 10-11, 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouaichi et al. (“Bouaichi”; US11200331B1) in view of Walker et al. (“Walker”; US20170180314A1).
Per claim 4: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 2. Bouaichi did not teach an arrangement wherein the different types of messages vary with respect to a type of the data content respectively included in the different types of messages.
However, in an analogous art, taught an arrangement wherein the different types of messages vary with respect to a type of the data content respectively included in the different types of messages (Walker para. [0109], “Processors 1070 and 1080 may be any type of processor, such as those discussed in connection with other figures. Processors 1070 and 1080 may exchange data via a point-to-point (PtP) interface 1050 using point-to-point interface circuits 1078 and 1088, respectively. Processors 1070 and 1080 may each exchange data with a chipset 1090 via individual point-to-point interfaces 1052 and 1054 using point-to-point interface circuits 1076, 1086, 1094, and 1098. Chipset 1090 may also exchange data with a high-performance graphics circuit 1038 via a high-performance graphics interface 1039, using an interface circuit 1092, which could be a PtP interface circuit. In alternative embodiments, any or all of the PtP links illustrated in FIG. 10 could be implemented as a multi-drop bus rather than a PtP link.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein the different types of messages vary with respect to a type of the data content respectively included in the different types of messages. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a message-handling versatility, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 10: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 2. Bouaichi didn’t explicitly teach an arrangement further comprising: for same protected data messages belonging to a same type of messages of the different types of messages, detecting changes to the data content as extracted from the same protected data messages sequentially in time, and wherein the providing comprises providing the data content to the one or more receiver nodes based on detection of a change to the data content.
However, in an analogous art, Walker taught an arrangement further comprising: for same protected data messages belonging to a same type of messages of the different types of messages, detecting changes to the data content as extracted from the same protected data messages sequentially in time, and wherein the providing comprises providing the data content to the one or more receiver nodes based on detection of a change to the data content (Walker para. [0022], “computer-monitoring of shipping packages and containers. Given the nature of shipping, with possession of the package changing hands (sometimes multiple times during a shipment), computing hardware used to make the shipping container “smart” can be especially prone to loss.”; Walker para. [0023], “a shipping container with monitors or sensors used to verify the contents of the container (and indicate when the contents are incorrect, missing, or intact)”; Walker para. [0029], “In one example, a gateway device 110 can receive data from the attestation device and package the data for forwarding to the management system 120. In some implementations, authentication logic, such as signature engine 265, can be used by a gateway device 110 to indicate handoffs, transitions, or changes of custody of an entity (e.g., a package, a human user, livestock, etc.) associated with a given attestation device, among other examples.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement further comprising: for same protected data messages belonging to a same type of messages of the different types of messages, detecting changes to the data content as extracted from the same protected data messages sequentially in time, and wherein the providing comprises providing the data content to the one or more receiver nodes based on detection of a change to the data content. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a message- response handling ability, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 11: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 10. Bouaichi didn’t explicitly teach an arrangement further comprising: sending, via the communication framework, a notification to at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes regarding the detection of the change.
However, in an analogous art, Walker taught an arrangement further comprising: sending, via the communication framework, a notification to at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes regarding the detection of the change. (Walker para. [0022], “computer-monitoring of shipping packages and containers. Given the nature of shipping, with possession of the package changing hands (sometimes multiple times during a shipment), computing hardware used to make the shipping container “smart” can be especially prone to loss.”; Walker para. [0023], “a shipping container with monitors or sensors used to verify the contents of the container (and indicate when the contents are incorrect, missing, or intact)”; Walker para. [0029], “In one example, a gateway device 110 can receive data from the attestation device and package the data for forwarding to the management system 120. In some implementations, authentication logic, such as signature engine 265, can be used by a gateway device 110 to indicate handoffs, transitions, or changes of custody of an entity (e.g., a package, a human user, livestock, etc.) associated with a given attestation device, among other examples.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement further comprising: sending, via the communication framework, a notification to at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes regarding the detection of the change. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a message- response handling ability and notification response ability, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 13: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 12. Bouaichi did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise electronic control units associated with different onboard systems of the vehicle and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise different applications executed by the data processing device.
However, in an analogous art, Walker taught an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise electronic control units associated with different onboard systems of the vehicle and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise different applications executed by the data processing device (Walker para. [0084], “in some implementations, a handoff of the package 305 can take place, for instance, as the package 305 transfers custody between a first driver or delivery person and another (either of the same or a different entity). A second gateway device 110b can be used to scan the package 305 at the arrival at the via point and report (e.g., 620) the change of custody (e.g., including associated log and/or attestation data) to the management system 120. Causing attestation and log data to be collected and reported to the management system 120 at such handoffs can be beneficial, for instance, in pinpointing the specific leg in a route where spoilage, an accident, a delay, opening of the package (e.g., from a change in temperature, humidity, or pressure measured by the sensor device 105), tampering with the sensor device, or another event took place involving the package 305. Such information can be used, for instance, to provide feedback, assign responsibility, or initiate remediation of the event, among other example uses. Further, as described above, a custody transfer protocol can be implemented that includes communication 622 between two collocated gateway devices (e.g., 110a-b) present at the via point, one handing off the package and the other accepting the package.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise electronic control units associated with different onboard systems of the vehicle and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise different applications executed by the data processing device. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a speed and versatility separate components, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 14: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 1. Bouaichi did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein the different instances of the verification process are performed by separate software modules.
However, in an analogous art, Walker taught an arrangement wherein the different instances of the verification process are performed by separate software modules (Walker para. [0084], “in some implementations, a handoff of the package 305 can take place, for instance, as the package 305 transfers custody between a first driver or delivery person and another (either of the same or a different entity). A second gateway device 110b can be used to scan the package 305 at the arrival at the via point and report (e.g., 620) the change of custody (e.g., including associated log and/or attestation data) to the management system 120. Causing attestation and log data to be collected and reported to the management system 120 at such handoffs can be beneficial, for instance, in pinpointing the specific leg in a route where spoilage, an accident, a delay, opening of the package (e.g., from a change in temperature, humidity, or pressure measured by the sensor device 105), tampering with the sensor device, or another event took place involving the package 305. Such information can be used, for instance, to provide feedback, assign responsibility, or initiate remediation of the event, among other example uses. Further, as described above, a custody transfer protocol can be implemented that includes communication 622 between two collocated gateway devices (e.g., 110a-b) present at the via point, one handing off the package and the other accepting the package.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein the different instances of the verification process are performed by separate software modules. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a speed and versatility separate components, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 18: Bouaichi taught the system of claim 17. Bouaichi did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes is configured to read the data content associated with a same type of the different types from the memory or the other memory at a different read frequency relative to a corresponding activation frequency of a corresponding instance of the verification process employed for the same type.
However, in an analogous field, Walker disclosed an arrangement wherein at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes is configured to read the data content associated with a same type of the different types from the memory or the other memory at a different read frequency relative to a corresponding activation frequency of a corresponding instance of the verification process employed for the same type (Walker para. [0105], “Transceiver 902 may be a radio frequency transceiver. Also, wireless signals may be transmitted and received via transceiver 902. Transceiver 902 may be constructed, for example, to include analog and digital radio frequency (RF) ‘front end’ functionality, circuitry for converting RF signals to a baseband frequency, via an intermediate frequency (IF) if desired, analog and digital filtering, and other conventional circuitry useful for carrying out wireless communications over modern cellular frequencies, for example, those suited for 3G or 4G communications. Transceiver 902 is connected to a processor 904, which may perform the bulk of the digital signal processing of signals to be communicated and signals received, at the baseband frequency.”; Walker para. [0085], “the shipment of the package 305 can continue along a second leg 625 of the route. In one example, an internet-connected gateway device 110c can be provided in the vehicle providing transport of the package 305 during the second leg 625 of the shipment. This in-vehicle gateway 110c can provide more frequent or even continuous scans of the sensor device 105 during the second leg 625 to collect log data and attestation data from the sensor device 105 and report 630 this data to the management system 120.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes is configured to read the data content associated with a same type of the different types from the memory or the other memory at a different read frequency relative to a corresponding activation frequency of a corresponding instance of the verification process employed for the same type. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a data-handling adaptability, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 19: Bouaichi taught the system of claim 18. Bouaichi further taught an arrangement wherein the system is integrated on or within a vehicle, wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise electronic control units associated with different onboard systems of the vehicle and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise different applications amongst the executable instructions stored in the memory (Bouaichi col. 10, lines 12-15, “a car manufacturer may gather limited data regarding the operation of its cars, and analyze the data to assist in development of assisted driving technologies for these cars.”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouaichi et al. (“Bouaichi”; US11200331B1) in view of CN110324219A (“CN’219”; Machine English Translation Is Used for Mappings).
Per claim 6: Bouaichi taught the method of claim 5. Bouaichi did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein providing the data content comprises publishing, via the communication framework, the data content to a shared memory of the system with timestamps respectively indicating timing of interception of corresponding messages of the respective messages as intercepted by the data processing device, wherein the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content from the memory via the communication framework.
However, in an analogous art, CN’219 taught an arrangement wherein providing the data content comprises publishing, via the communication framework, the data content to a memory of the system with timestamps respectively indicating timing of interception of corresponding messages of the respective messages, wherein the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content from the memory via the communication framework (CN’219, page 13, underlined portion, “the compromising index further comprises time of intercepting message, besides, in the process of intercepting the message, or corresponding to those messages and specifies the timestamp of the interception time of those messages stored in the log.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bouaichi to include, as taught by CN’219, an arrangement wherein providing the data content comprises publishing, via the communication framework, the data content to a memory of the system with timestamps respectively indicating timing of interception of corresponding messages of the respective messages, wherein the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content from the memory via the communication framework. Motivation for modifying would have been to add a time-record keeping ability, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/CN’219 combination within the security field.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouaichi et al. (“Bouaichi”; US11200331B1) in view of CN110324219A (“CN’219”; Machine English Translation Is Used for Mappings) and Walker et al. (“Walker”; US20170180314A1).
Per claim 7: The Bouaichi/CN’129 combination taught the method of claim 6. The Bouaichi/CN’129 combination did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes is configured to read the data content associated with a same type of messages of the different types of messages from the shared memory at a different read frequency relative to a corresponding activation frequency of a corresponding instance of the verification process employed for the same type of messages.
However, in an analogous art, Walker taught an arrangement wherein at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes is configured to read the data content associated with a same type of messages of the different types of messages from the shared memory at a different read frequency relative to a corresponding activation frequency of a corresponding instance of the verification process employed for the same type of messages (Walker para. [0105], “Transceiver 902 may be a radio frequency transceiver. Also, wireless signals may be transmitted and received via transceiver 902. Transceiver 902 may be constructed, for example, to include analog and digital radio frequency (RF) ‘front end’ functionality, circuitry for converting RF signals to a baseband frequency, via an intermediate frequency (IF) if desired, analog and digital filtering, and other conventional circuitry useful for carrying out wireless communications over modern cellular frequencies, for example, those suited for 3G or 4G communications. Transceiver 902 is connected to a processor 904, which may perform the bulk of the digital signal processing of signals to be communicated and signals received, at the baseband frequency.”; Walker para. [0085], “the shipment of the package 305 can continue along a second leg 625 of the route. In one example, an internet-connected gateway device 110c can be provided in the vehicle providing transport of the package 305 during the second leg 625 of the shipment. This in-vehicle gateway 110c can provide more frequent or even continuous scans of the sensor device 105 during the second leg 625 to collect log data and attestation data from the sensor device 105 and report 630 this data to the management system 120.”). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Bouaichi/CN’219 combination to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein at least one receiver node of the one or more receiver nodes is configured to read the data content associated with a same type of messages of the different types of messages from the shared memory at a different read frequency relative to a corresponding activation frequency of a corresponding instance of the verification process employed for the same type of messages.. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a message-handling versatility, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/CN’219/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 8: The Bouaichi/CN’129 combination taught the method of claim 6. The Bouaichi/CN’129 combination did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein at least some of the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content associated with a same type of messages of the different types of messages from the shared memory at different read frequencies.
However, in an analogous art, Walker taught an arrangement wherein at least some of the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content associated with a same type of messages of the different types of messages from the shared memory at different read frequencies (Walker para. [0105], “Transceiver 902 may be a radio frequency transceiver. Also, wireless signals may be transmitted and received via transceiver 902. Transceiver 902 may be constructed, for example, to include analog and digital radio frequency (RF) ‘front end’ functionality, circuitry for converting RF signals to a baseband frequency, via an intermediate frequency (IF) if desired, analog and digital filtering, and other conventional circuitry useful for carrying out wireless communications over modern cellular frequencies, for example, those suited for 3G or 4G communications. Transceiver 902 is connected to a processor 904, which may perform the bulk of the digital signal processing of signals to be communicated and signals received, at the baseband frequency.”; Walker para. [0085], “the shipment of the package 305 can continue along a second leg 625 of the route. In one example, an internet-connected gateway device 110c can be provided in the vehicle providing transport of the package 305 during the second leg 625 of the shipment. This in-vehicle gateway 110c can provide more frequent or even continuous scans of the sensor device 105 during the second leg 625 to collect log data and attestation data from the sensor device 105 and report 630 this data to the management system 120.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Bouaichi/CN’219 combination to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein at least some of the one or more receiver nodes are configured to read the data content associated with a same type of messages of the different types of messages from the memory at different read frequencies. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a message-handling versatility, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/CN’219/Walker combination within the security field.
Per claim 9: The Bouaichi/CN’129 combination taught the method of claim 6. The Bouaichi/CN’129 combination did not explicitly teach an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise a first sender node configured to send first protected data messages of a first type of messages of the different types of messages at a first frequency, wherein performing a verification process comprises performing a first instance of the verification process tailored to the first type of messages and using an activation frequency corresponding to the first frequency, and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise at least one receiver node configured to read the data content as extracted from the first protected data messages from the memory at a lower frequency relative to the first frequency.
However, in an analogous field, Walker taught an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise a first sender node configured to send first protected data messages of a first type of messages of the different types of messages at a first frequency, wherein performing a verification process comprises performing a first instance of the verification process tailored to the first type of messages and using an activation frequency corresponding to the first frequency, and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise at least one receiver node configured to read the data content as extracted from the first protected data messages from the memory at a lower frequency relative to the first frequency (Walker para. [0105], “Transceiver 902 may be a radio frequency transceiver. Also, wireless signals may be transmitted and received via transceiver 902. Transceiver 902 may be constructed, for example, to include analog and digital radio frequency (RF) ‘front end’ functionality, circuitry for converting RF signals to a baseband frequency, via an intermediate frequency (IF) if desired, analog and digital filtering, and other conventional circuitry useful for carrying out wireless communications over modern cellular frequencies, for example, those suited for 3G or 4G communications. Transceiver 902 is connected to a processor 904, which may perform the bulk of the digital signal processing of signals to be communicated and signals received, at the baseband frequency.”; Walker para. [0085], “the shipment of the package 305 can continue along a second leg 625 of the route. In one example, an internet-connected gateway device 110c can be provided in the vehicle providing transport of the package 305 during the second leg 625 of the shipment. This in-vehicle gateway 110c can provide more frequent or even continuous scans of the sensor device 105 during the second leg 625 to collect log data and attestation data from the sensor device 105 and report 630 this data to the management system 120.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Bouaichi/CN’219 combination to include, as taught by Walker, an arrangement wherein the one or more sender nodes comprise a first sender node configured to send first protected data messages of a first type of messages of the different types of messages at a first frequency, wherein performing a verification process comprises performing a first instance of the verification process tailored to the first type of messages and using an activation frequency corresponding to the first frequency, and wherein the one or more receiver nodes comprise at least one receiver node configured to read the data content as extracted from the first protected data messages from the memory at a lower frequency relative to the first frequency. Motivation for modifying would have been to increase a message-handling versatility, and thus increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Bouaichi/CN’219/Walker combination within the security field.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Paul J Skwierawski whose telephone number is (571)272-2642. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00am-3:30pm weekdays.
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 supervisory primary examiner (SPE) Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/Paul Skwierawski/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights