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
Claims 21-40 remain for examination. Claims 21, 31, 40 have been amended. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this action has been made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3The 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.
Claims 21, 31, 40 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. The independent claims as well as the dependent claims contain the phrase “the endorsement of the external device”. The meaning of this phrase is not explained in the Applicant’s disclosure the phrase is simply repeated throughout the disclosure.
The term “endorsement” in claims 21, 31, 40 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “endorsement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase “the endorsement of the external device” appears to mean authentication of the external device. Appropriate Correction is required. It is recommended this phrase be deleted from the claims.
Claims 22-30, 32-39 are each dependent from claims 21, 31, 40 are therefore rejected under the same rationale as claims 21, 31, 40.
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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170061131 A1 (hereinafter " Santos "), in view of Dragone US 20170288876 A1.
As to claim 21, Santos teaches an apparatus comprising: interface circuitry; machine readable instructions; processor circuitry to, based on the machine readable instructions (Santos Pa. [0018]) [memory 135 may comprise one or more tangible (non-transitory) computer readable storage media (e.g., a memory device) encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when the software is executed (by the processor 130) it is operable to perform the operations of the operating system and the application software]: receive data indicative of first operations performed on an external device (Santos Pa. [0045]) [analyzes the content received from security module 120 and at 635, server 140 determines whether computing device 110 is compromised based on the analysis of the content ], the external device including Trusted Program Module (TPM) circuitry (Santos Pa. [0014]) [The computing device may be provided with a trusted platform module (TPM). The TPM may generally perform public key cryptographic operations, computing hash functions, key management and generation, secure storage of keys or any other secret data, random number generation, and integrity] and the data signed by the TPM circuitry with an attestation key (Santos Pa. [0014]) [Attestation data may be signed by the TPM whose key is certified by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) and the attestation data may be trusted to be accurate when it is signed by the TPM]; execute at least one second operation based on the received data; determine, based on a result of the execution, whether to endorse the external device; (Santos Pa. [0048-0049]) [At 715, security module 120 sends the content (MemDump) stored in security module memory 124 to server 140 via communication channel 170. At 720, the content is extracted, decoded and compared to a known-good system or memory reference to determiner whether computing device 110 is compromised…When it is determined at 720 that computing device 110 has been compromised, at 725, security module 120 receives further interrogation commands from a network administrator via server 140 to perform further investigation (read second operation) and cyber security forensics and to gather and preserve attack evidence], generate, after a determination to endorse the external device (Santos Pa. [0048]) [When it is determined that computing device 110 is not compromised, no further interrogation commands are received by security module 120 from server 140 and the operations continue at 705 (implied that the external device is endorsed )], attestation data indicative of the endorsement of the external device (Santos Pa. [0013-0014]) Attestation is a mechanism that is used to prove a device's identity to a remote party. Through attestation, a computing device's operating system and application software may be proven to be intact and trustworthy.]
It is noted that Santos does not explicitly disclose perform a cryptographic operation on the attestation data; and return a result of the cryptographic operation to the external device.
However, Dragone discloses perform a cryptographic operation on the attestation data; and return a result of the cryptographic operation to the external device (Dragone Pa. [0042]) [Attesting attestation data may refer to the fact of logging one or more (signed) audit records in attestation data and send the attestation data to another element. The attesting may further comprise signing the attestation data to be sent in order that the receiver of the attestation data has access to the identity of the sender. The signature of the attestation data may for example be based on a public key cryptography method]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Dragone to the Trusted Program Module (TPM) system of Santos would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would combine the received attestation data with data attested by the given element and sending the combined data as the attestation data to a further element of the set of elements (Dragone Pa. [0006])
As to claim 22, Santos teaches wherein the cryptographic operation corresponds to a signature of the attestation data (Santos Pa. [0014]) [ Attestation data may be signed by the TPM whose key is certified by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) and the attestation data may be trusted to be accurate when it is signed by the TPM.]
As to claim 23, Santos teaches wherein the at least one second operation corresponds to a measurement of the first operations (Santos Pa. [0014]) [integrity measurement]
As to claim 24, Santos teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to receive the data as an Application Program Interface (API) request (Santos Pa. [0033]) [using an application programming interface (API)]
As to claim 25, Santos teaches wherein the first operations are formatted according to a Trusted Computing Group (TCG) protocol (Santos Pa. [0014]) [trusted platform module (TPM), can be included TCG protocol which is well known in the art]
As to claim 26, the combination of Santos and Dragone teaches wherein one or more of: a) the apparatus or b) the external device include a root of trust (Dragone Pa. [0087]) [provide high assurance roots of trust]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Dragone to the Trusted Program Module (TPM) system of Santos would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would combine the received attestation data with data attested by the given element and sending the combined data as the attestation data to a further element of the set of elements (Dragone Pa. [0006])
As to claim 27, Santos teaches wherein one or more of: a) the apparatus or b) the external device implement a virtual machine (Santos Pa. [0035]) [virtual memory]
As to claim 28, Santos teaches wherein the external device stores the data in a platform configuration register (PCR) before transmitting the data to the processor circuitry (Santos Pa. [0012]) [receiving the command, one or more memory devices of the computing device are directly accessed by the first processor independent from the second processor to validate integrity of the computing device.]
As to claim 29, the combination of Santos and Dragone teaches wherein the received data is indicative of a performance target of the external device during the performance of the first operations (Dragone Pa. [0075]) [High-performance computing systems]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Dragone to the Trusted Program Module (TPM) system of Santos would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would combine the received attestation data with data attested by the given element and sending the combined data as the attestation data to a further element of the set of elements (Dragone Pa. [0006])
As to claim 30, the combination of Santos and Dragone teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to transmit the result of the c cryptographic operation to a distributed ledger (Dragone Pa. [0057-0058]) [The chain of audit records may be built as a non-malleable chain—i.e., an audit record which may not be modified once entries are issued. For example, hash chains or other constructs based on cryptographically secure hash functions, may be used.]
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique taught by Dragone to the Trusted Program Module (TPM) system of Santos would have yield predictable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would combine the received attestation data with data attested by the given element and sending the combined data as the attestation data to a further element of the set of elements (Dragone Pa. [0006])
As to claims 31 and 40, claims 31 and 40 recite the claimed that contain similar limitations as claim 21; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
As to claim 32-39, claims 32-39 recite the claimed that respectively contain similar limitations as claims 22-29; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Arguments
It is argued that:
Independent claim 21 sets forth an apparatus including processor circuitry to receive data indicative of first operations performed on an external device including TPM circuitry, execute at least one second operation based on the received data, determine whether to endorse the external device, "generate, after a determination to endorse the external device, attestation data indicative of the endorsement of the external device," "perform a cryptographic operation on the attestation data," and "return a result of the cryptographic operation to the external device." The Santos/Dragone combination fails to teach or suggest such an apparatus… Dragone fails to supply the elements missing from Santos.
Dragone also does not teach or suggest "return a result of the cryptographic operation to the external device," as set forth in claim 21. Dragone paragraph [0042] states "send the attestation data to another element," but this describes sending self-generated attestation data between elements within an IC device for mutual verification, not returning a cryptographic result representing endorsement to an external device that submitted data for validation. As a result, Dragone fails to teach or suggest the elements of claim 21 missing from Santos.
Because each of Santos and Dragone is missing the same elements of claim 21, namely, "generate, after a determination to endorse the external device, attestation data indicative of the endorsement of the external device" and "return a result of the cryptographic operation to the external device," the alleged Santos/Dragone combination is missing those same elements. Therefore, the Santos/Dragone combination fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the apparatus of claim 21. Withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of claim 21 and dependent claims 22-30 is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant's argument, Examiner respectfully submits that claimed limitation is to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2D 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2D 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this case, the combination of Santos and Dragone teaches fairly discloses the claimed limitation.
In addition, it is submitted that there no such subject matter “attestation data indicative of the endorsement of the external device” in the applicant’s specification.
As to claims 31 and 40, claims 31 and 40 recite the claimed that contain similar limitations as claim 21; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Therefore, the Applicant arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVANS DESROSIERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/EVANS DESROSIERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights