Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 11/13/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 11/13/2024, are acknowledged.
Provisional Priority
The provisional priority date of 11/28/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “wherein: the message and the encoded according to…”, which is grammatically incorrect. Examiner regards this as a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 8, 15, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “non-standard hash algorithm”, which is indefinite as to what constitutes “non-standard”. Claims 8, 15, 17 and 19 recite similar limitations.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The method of claim 16”, however, claim 16 is directed to an apparatus. Examiner recommends amending the claim to depend from a method claim, or otherwise amend dependent claims 17 and 19-21 to recite “The apparatus”.
Claims 19-21 depend on claim 17 and are similarly rejected.
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 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 20220182244 A1), in view of Gressel (US 20140074719 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Falk teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method of generating an implicitly attested certificate signing request (CSR), comprising: (Falk; Abstract: issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user)
generating a message having a public key of a key pair of a device and an identifier of a device; (Falk; [0047], [0049]: The cryptographic client identifier is contained or referenced in the issued certificates (i.e., identifier of a device); public key PK is to be verified by the certificate (i.e., a public key of a key pair of a device ))
generating a signature of the message by signing the digest according to a private key of the key pair of the device; and (Falk; [0049]: the certificate request message can be digitally signed with the private client key (i.e., signing the digest according to a private key of the key pair of the device))
encoding the message and the signature to produce the CSR; (Falk; [0050]: In the case of the use of an authenticated communications link for forwarding the request for a certificate, for example the use of EST (Enrollment over Secure Transport, IETF Standard RFC 7030) is possible (i.e., encoding))
wherein the CSR implicitly attests to the identity of the device according to at least one of the message, the digest, and the encoding. (Falk; [0047]: As a result, a client can only request certificates, which are also actually assigned to it (in other words, its cryptographic client identifier) (i.e., implicitly attests to the identity of the device))
Falk does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
generating a digest of the message;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gressel discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
generating a digest of the message; (Gressel; [0084]: Digest (verb), Message Digest, and Hash Digest--we call the process of pseudo-random expansion/diffusion of a stream of Message Words into the variables of the ZK-Crypt, a digesting or a Hash Digest process, a generally recognized definition)
Gressel is combinable with Falk because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Falk to incorporate message hashing and bit shifting processes as in Gressel in order to improve the security of the system by further obfuscating information used for attestation.
Regarding claim 2, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 2.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the message and the digest are processed according to a transform before the encoding, the transform reversible only by a recipient of the CSR to recover the at least one of the message and the digest and to implicitly attest to an identity of the device. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time (i.e., reversible))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 2.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the processing comprises one or more of: permutation; bit-swapping; and bit-shifting. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) (i.e., bit-shifting) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 2.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the digest is processed, and the processing comprises one or more of: permutation of the digest; bit-swapping of the digest; bit-shifting of the digest; and augmenting the digest with an identifier of the device. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) (i.e., bit-shifting) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 2.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein: the digest is generated by a hash algorithm; and (Gressel; [0084]: Digest (verb), Message Digest, and Hash Digest--we call the process of pseudo-random expansion/diffusion of a stream of Message Words into the variables of the ZK-Crypt, a digesting or a Hash Digest process, a generally recognized definition (i.e., the digest is generated by a hash algorithm))
the processing comprises hashing the digest one or more additional times. (Gressel; [0118]: We say that each digest of a Message word is an expansion of 32 bits into the 527 State Variable Engine (an intermediate Chaining Value) (i.e., hashing the digest one or more additional times), and digesting a long message (plurality of Messages) into the final Chaining Value is a unique untruncated expansion)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 1.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the public key and the signed digest are encoded according to a non-standard encoding, decodable only by a recipient of the encoded CSR to recover the message and the digest and to implicitly attest an identity of the device. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time (i.e., reversible))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 1.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the method further comprises: providing the CSR to a Certificate Authority; attesting the CSR according to the at least one of the message, the digest, and the encoding; (Falk; [0016]: a mechanism (CA) for issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user with the aid of a provided public user key, having a verification unit, which is configured to issue a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity, which contains the public user key and identifies the client, wherein it verifies the ownership by the client of a previous request for a certificate of authenticity)
authenticating the CSR by: generating a digest of the message; verifying the signature according to the digest and the public key to produce a verification result; and authenticating the CSR according to the verification result. (Falk; [0016]: a mechanism (CA) for issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user with the aid of a provided public user key, having a verification unit, which is configured to issue a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity, which contains the public user key and identifies the client, wherein it verifies the ownership by the client of a previous request for a certificate of authenticity)
Regarding claim 10, Falk teaches the limitations of claim 10 substantially as follows:
An apparatus for generating an implicitly attested certificate signing request (CSR), comprising: (Falk; Abstract: issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user)
a processor; a memory, communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory storing processor instructions comprising processor instructions for: (Falk; [0003]: by means of a processor and/or a storage device unit for storing program commands)
generating a message having a public key of a key pair of a device; (Falk; [0047], [0049]: The cryptographic client identifier is contained or referenced in the issued certificates (i.e., identifier of a device); public key PK is to be verified by the certificate (i.e., a public key of a key pair of a device ))
generating a signature of the message by signing the digest according to a private key of the key pair of the device; and (Falk; [0049]: the certificate request message can be digitally signed with the private client key (i.e., signing the digest according to a private key of the key pair of the device))
encoding the message and the signature to produce the CSR; and (Falk; [0050]: In the case of the use of an authenticated communications link for forwarding the request for a certificate, for example the use of EST (Enrollment over Secure Transport, IETF Standard RFC 7030) is possible (i.e., encoding))
wherein the CSR implicitly attests to the identity of the device according to at least one of the message, the digest, and the encoding. (Falk; [0047]: As a result, a client can only request certificates, which are also actually assigned to it (in other words, its cryptographic client identifier) (i.e., implicitly attests to the identity of the device))
Falk does not teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
generating a digest of the message;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gressel discloses the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
generating a digest of the message; (Gressel; [0084]: Digest (verb), Message Digest, and Hash Digest--we call the process of pseudo-random expansion/diffusion of a stream of Message Words into the variables of the ZK-Crypt, a digesting or a Hash Digest process, a generally recognized definition)
Gressel is combinable with Falk because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Falk to incorporate message hashing and bit shifting processes as in Gressel in order to improve the security of the system by further obfuscating information used for attestation.
Regarding claim 11, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 10.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 10, wherein: at least one of the message and the digest are processed according to a transform before the encoding, the transform reversible only by a recipient of the encoded CSR to recover the at least one of the message and the digest and to implicitly attest to an identity of the device. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time (i.e., reversible))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 11.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processing comprises one or more of: permutation; bit-swapping; and bit-shifting. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) (i.e., bit-shifting) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 11.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the digest is processed, and the processing comprises one or more of: permutation of the digest; bit-swapping of the digest; bit-shifting of the digest; and augmenting the digest with an identifier of the device. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) (i.e., bit-shifting) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 11.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein: the digest is generated by a hash algorithm; and (Gressel; [0084]: Digest (verb), Message Digest, and Hash Digest--we call the process of pseudo-random expansion/diffusion of a stream of Message Words into the variables of the ZK-Crypt, a digesting or a Hash Digest process, a generally recognized definition (i.e., the digest is generated by a hash algorithm))
the processing comprises hashing the digest one or more additional times. (Gressel; [0118]: We say that each digest of a Message word is an expansion of 32 bits into the 527 State Variable Engine (an intermediate Chaining Value) (i.e., hashing the digest one or more additional times), and digesting a long message (plurality of Messages) into the final Chaining Value is a unique untruncated expansion)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 10.
Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the public key and the signed digest are encoded according to a non-standard encoding, decodable only by a recipient of the encoded CSR to recover the message and the digest and to implicitly attest an identity of the device. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time (i.e., reversible))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Falk teaches the limitations of claim 18 substantially as follows:
A method of providing a digital certificate in response to an implicitly attested certificate signing request (CSR), comprising: (Falk; Abstract: issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user)
receiving the CSR, the CSR generated by: generating a message having a public key of a key pair of a device, and a device identifier; (Falk; [0047], [0049]: The cryptographic client identifier is contained or referenced in the issued certificates (i.e., identifier of a device); public key PK is to be verified by the certificate (i.e., a public key of a key pair of a device ))
generating a signature by signing the digest according to a private key of the key pair of the device; and (Falk; [0049]: the certificate request message can be digitally signed with the private client key (i.e., signing the digest according to a private key of the key pair of the device))
encoding the message and the signature to produce the CSR; (Falk; [0050]: In the case of the use of an authenticated communications link for forwarding the request for a certificate, for example the use of EST (Enrollment over Secure Transport, IETF Standard RFC 7030) is possible (i.e., encoding))
decoding the CSR; implicitly attesting the CSR according to the at least one of the message, the digest, and the encoding; (Falk; [0016]: a mechanism (CA) for issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user with the aid of a provided public user key, having a verification unit, which is configured to issue a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity, which contains the public user key and identifies the client, wherein it verifies the ownership by the client of a previous request for a certificate of authenticity)
authenticating the CSR by: generating a digest of the message; verifying the signature according to the digest and the public key to produce a verification result; and authenticating the CSR according to the verification result; and providing the digital certificate only if the decoded CSR is implicitly attested and authenticated. (Falk; [0016]: a mechanism (CA) for issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user with the aid of a provided public user key, having a verification unit, which is configured to issue a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity, which contains the public user key and identifies the client, wherein it verifies the ownership by the client of a previous request for a certificate of authenticity)
Falk does not teach the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
generating a digest of the message;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gressel discloses the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
generating a digest of the message; (Gressel; [0084]: Digest (verb), Message Digest, and Hash Digest--we call the process of pseudo-random expansion/diffusion of a stream of Message Words into the variables of the ZK-Crypt, a digesting or a Hash Digest process, a generally recognized definition)
Gressel is combinable with Falk because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Falk to incorporate message hashing and bit shifting processes as in Gressel in order to improve the security of the system by further obfuscating information used for attestation.
Claims 6, 8, 15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 20220182244 A1), in view of Gressel (US 20140074719 A1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Eisen (US 20210044558 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 2.
Falk and Gressel do not teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the digest is generated by a non-standard hash algorithm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eisen discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the digest is generated by a non-standard hash algorithm. (Eisen; [0065]: the checksum may be generated using proprietary hash functions or algorithms)
Eisen is combinable with Falk and Gressel because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Falk and Gressel to incorporate proprietary hashing and encoding techniques as in Eisen in order to expand the functionality of the system to accommodate non-standard encoding techniques for similar predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 7.
Falk and Gressel do not teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method of claim 7, wherein the non-standard encoding comprises an encoding proprietary to the device and recipient of the CSR.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eisen discloses the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method of claim 7, wherein the non-standard encoding comprises an encoding proprietary to the device and recipient of the CSR. (Eisen; [0065]: the checksum may be generated using proprietary hash functions or algorithms)
Eisen is combinable with Falk and Gressel because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Falk and Gressel to incorporate proprietary hashing and encoding techniques as in Eisen in order to expand the functionality of the system to accommodate non-standard encoding techniques for similar predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 11.
Falk and Gressel do not teach the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the digest is generated by a non-standard hash algorithm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eisen discloses the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the digest is generated by a non-standard hash algorithm. (Eisen; [0065]: the checksum may be generated using proprietary hash functions or algorithms)
Eisen is combinable with Falk and Gressel because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Falk and Gressel to incorporate proprietary hashing and encoding techniques as in Eisen in order to expand the functionality of the system to accommodate non-standard encoding techniques for similar predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Falk and Gressel teach the limitations of claim 16.
Falk and Gressel do not teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The method of claim 16, wherein the non-standard encoding comprises an encoding proprietary to the device and recipient of the CSR.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eisen discloses the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
The method of claim 16, wherein the non-standard encoding comprises an encoding proprietary to the device and recipient of the CSR. (Eisen; [0065]: the checksum may be generated using proprietary hash functions or algorithms)
Eisen is combinable with Falk and Gressel because all are from the same field of endeavor of identity verification/attestation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Falk and Gressel to incorporate proprietary hashing and encoding techniques as in Eisen in order to expand the functionality of the system to accommodate non-standard encoding techniques for similar predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Falk, Gressel and Eisen teach the limitations of claim 17.
Falk, Gressel and Eisen teach the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The method of claim 17, wherein: the message and the encoded according to a non-standard encoding decodable only by the recipient of the CSR; and (Eisen; [0065]: the checksum may be generated using proprietary hash functions or algorithms)
determining if the decoded CSR is attested comprises: determining if the CSR is decodable according to the non-standard encoding; and identifying the CSR as attested only if the CSR is decodable according to the non-standard decoding. (Falk; [0016]: a mechanism (CA) for issuing a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity for a user with the aid of a provided public user key, having a verification unit, which is configured to issue a cryptographically protected certificate of authenticity, which contains the public user key and identifies the client, wherein it verifies the ownership by the client of a previous request for a certificate of authenticity)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 17 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Falk, Gressel and Eisen teach the limitations of claim 17.
Falk, Gressel and Eisen teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
The method of claim 17, wherein: at least one of the message and the digest are processed according to a transform before the encoding, the transform reversible only by the recipient of the CSR to recover the at least one of the message and the digest; and determining if the decoded CSR is attested comprises: reversing the transform of the at least one of the message and the digest; and implicitly attesting to the identity of the device according to the reversed transform. (Gressel; [0126]: An n bit LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) has a cyclic sequence of 2n-1 n output bit words. An observer who learns an unaltered string of 2n bits of the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) output sequence can recreate the whole sequence and can learn the LFSR (Linear Feedback Shift Register) internal value at any "point" in time (i.e., reversible))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, Falk, Gressel and Eisen teach the limitations of claim 17.
Falk, Gressel and Eisen teach the limitations of claim 21 as follows:
The method of claim 17, wherein determining if the decoded CSR is attested comprises: determining if the device identifier is on a whitelist of legitimate device identifiers or on a blacklist of illegitimate device identifiers; if the device identifier is on the whitelist of legitimate device identifiers, attesting to the identity of the device and providing the digital certificate; and if the device identifier is on the blacklist of illegitimate device identifiers, returning an error. (Falk; [0065]-[0067]: ascertain the cryptographic ClientID (whitelist), which is, for example, explicitly configured or implicitly from a separate certificate (“does the requestee (peer node) belong to the same client as the checking node or is the client known and accepted?”. If yes, then the certificate is accepted)
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Baldwin (US 20230409756 A1) which teaches a secure channel to be set up back to the model provider based on the implicit attestation.
Severns-Wiliams (US 20220292203 A1) which teaches measurements for software attestation of a device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438