DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 and 03/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo in limitation “confirming the at least one rule to be applied to the to the untrusted component is satisfied” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an untrusted component configured for local communication, trusted component is configured to, authorization component configured to authorize, networked entity configured for a first protocol in claims 30 and 48.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim limitations “an untrusted component configured for local communication, trusted component is configured to, authorization component configured to authorize and networked entity configured for a first protocol” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 31-38 and 49-55 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claim recites the limitation
connecting the networked entity to an untrusted component of an endpoint via a second network;” it is not clear whether an endpoint is refereeing to the endpoint in the previous limitation of the claim. Proper correction is required.
Claims 40-47 are also rejected based on claims dependencies from claim 39
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 21-24, 27, 30, 32, 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand; William Alexander et al. US 10549487 (hereinafter Strand) in view of FRADET, E CN 108140076 (hereinafter Fradet).
As per claim 21, Strand teaches: A method for operating an endpoint, the method comprising:
receiving, at a trusted component on an endpoint, a request associated with an untrusted component on the endpoint, wherein the untrusted component is configured for local communication (Automated fabrication devices (AFDs) such as three-dimensional (3D) printers (an endpoint) receives through a starter (trusted component) which is on an 3D printer in form of a cartridge (Strand: fig. 4 and col. 2, lines 19-22) requests for 3D print jobs);
receiving, at the untrusted component via an isolated data channel, at least one of a command or data relating to the request (“the AFD may be configured to accept portions of, or coupled to, a “starter” suggesting that at least one of a command or data relating to the request maybe received from a different data channel (e.g., an isolated data channel). Strand: col. 2, lines 17-19)
receiving, at the trusted component a container comprising at least one file associated with the untrusted component (“The feedstock information may include digitally signed data. The machine readable feedstock information may be used for one or more of authenticating, identifying, preventing unauthorized reproduction, or providing other quality assurance factors for the feedstock materials and for objects produced using the feedstock materials. In one embodiment, the AFD may be configured to accept portions of, or coupled to, a “starter”.” Strand: col. 2, lines 11-10);
Strand does not teach; however, Fradet discloses: identifying from the at least one of the container, the request, or configuration of the trusted component, a declaration of at least one rule to be applied to the untrusted component (“electronically receiving configuration data from an electronic data storage device; electronically storing configuration data for production operation, wherein the configuration data for production operation specifies parameters used in the production of the product; sending the configuration data to the authorization module; At the authorization module: determining whether the production operation is authorized; generating the confirmed configuration data, the confirmed configuration data comprises a key, a plurality of authorized product identifiers and a security token; sending the confirmed configuration data to the signature module; at the signature module, signing the confirmed configuration data; at the identification module, receiving the request of the product identifier and responding to the request to generate the product identifier; transmitting the product identifier from the identification module to the signature module; digitally signing the product identifier at the signature module; and transmitting the digitally signed product identifier to the printer module” Fradet: page. 22, para.2);
confirming the at least one rule to be applied to the to the untrusted component is
satisfied (Fradet: page. 22, para.2); and
providing a response to the request, wherein the response includes a digitally-signed message from the trusted component indicating that the at least one rule is satisfied (Fradet: page. 22, para.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Strand with the teachings of Fradet to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied in a predictable manner to ensure security of an intended process.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Strand teaches:
the trusted component includes an authorization component, and the method further includes authorizing a token associated with a user (strand: col. 16, lines 40-55).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Strand teaches: the at least one rule relates to a number of parts that can be fabricated from the request, a date for which the request is valid, a time for which the request is valid, allowable content, data about a file, or to preventing sensitive data from being transmitted (strand: col. 9, lines 13-21).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Strand teaches:
The method of claim 21 further comprising allowing the untrusted component to satisfy the request (strand: fig. 7, block 708).
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. Strand teaches:
validating, using the trusted component, the at least one file is in a prescribed format to prevent exfiltration of malicious content (Strand: col. 8, lines 31-47).
As per claim 30, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 21 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 21.
As per claim 32, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 23 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 23. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 23.
As per claim 33, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 24 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 24. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 24.
As per claim 36, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 27 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 27. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 27.
Claims 25, 26, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Fradet and further in view of Kusumoto; Akira US 20180239678 (hereinafter Kusmoto).
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. The combination of Strand and Fradet does not teach; however, Kusmoto discloses:
authenticating a user by using an externally accessible reader that is configured with the trusted component (“To the external connection interface 88, an external device such as an integral circuit (IC) card reader is connectable. The IC card reader connected to the external connection interface 88 implements a user authentication function of reading out information of a user who is to use the MFP stored in the IC card and authenticating the user. To the external connection interface 88, an external storage device such as an external HDD or other device may be connected.” Kusmoto: para. 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Strand and Fradet with the teachings of Kusmoto to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to manage performing required tasks.
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated herein. The combination of Strand and Fradet does not teach; however, Kusmoto discloses:
authenticating the user includes verifying a government common access card (CAC), smart card, or cryptographic token associated with the user (Kusmoto: para. 103).
As per claim 34, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 25 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 25. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 25.
As per claim 35, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 26 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 26. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 26.
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Fradet and further in view of Martz; Peter et al. US 20190098020 (hereinafter Martz).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. The combination of Strand and Fradet does not teach; however, Martz discloses: configuring the isolated data channel to prevent communication from the untrusted component from reaching the trusted component (Martz para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Strand and Fradet with the teachings of Martz to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure security of data communication.
As per claim 37, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 28 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 28. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 28.
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Fradet and further in view of Schultz; Paul T. et al. US 20130085968 (hereinafter Schultz).
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein. The combination of Strand and Fradet does not teach; however, Schultz discloses: receiving, at the untrusted component, the at least one file from an entity in local communication with the untrusted component (“Mobile device 300 also includes messaging module 331 that is configured to receive, transmit, and/or process messages (e.g., Enhanced Messaging Service (EMS) messages, SMS messages, MMS messages, IM messages, electronic mail messages, and/or any other suitable message) received from (or transmitted to) printing platform 105 or any other suitable component or facility of system 100. As such, messaging module 331 may be configured to receive, transmit, and/or process print requests, pricing information, mobile device 300 and print station location information, terms of printing file, authenticating information and status updates. It is noted that print file, spatial positioning information, status updates, and device logs may be transmitted to printing platform 105 via transceiver 333 and/or wireless controller 337.” Schultz: para. 61);
configuring, on the untrusted component, the container according to the content of the at least one file, wherein the trusted component receives the container via the isolated data channel (Schultz: para. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Strand and Fradet with the teachings of Schultz to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure authenticated use of a printing device.
As per claim 38, this claim defines a system that corresponds to method of claim 29 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 29. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 29.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand in view of Fradet and further in view of SINGH; Gulprit et al. US 20160188862 (hereinafter Singh).
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated herein. The combination of Strand and Fradet does not teach; however, Singh discloses: the trusted component includes an authorization component configured to authorize a physical token associated with a user (Singh: para. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Strand and Fradet with the teachings of Singh to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to provide strong security by requiring physical possession..
Allowable Subject Matter
The invention defined in claims 39 and 48 are not suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 39 and 48 would be allowed if the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action.
Reason for allowance
The prior art of record (Strand; William Alexander US 10549487, FRADET, E CN 108140076, Kusumoto; Akira US 20180239678, Martz; Peter et al. US 20190098020, Schultz; Paul T. et al. US 20130085968, SINGH; Gulprit et al. US 20160188862, Cheng; Lee C. US-9754299, Xu; Minghua US-20170141926, Watson; Patrick Goode US-20180089403 and BAREKET; Amit US-20220045854) singly or in combination does not disclose, with respect to independent claim 39 “identifying a networked entity configured for a first protocol; connecting to a first network a trusted component of an endpoint configured for a second protocol; connecting the networked entity to an untrusted component of an endpoint via a second network; configuring the untrusted component to communicate with the entity using the first protocol; receiving, at the trusted component of the endpoint a request comprising commands or data according to the second protocol; receiving, at the untrusted component via an isolated data channel, the commands or data;” and similar limitations of independent claim 48 in combination with the other claimed features as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights