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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received on August 5, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 set forth in the previous office action have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds or rejection. Applicant has amended the claims in such a way that the scope of the claims has been changed. Accordingly, new art is being used to address the newly added claim limitation(s). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TCG (“TCG Trusted Network Connect TNC Architecture for Interoperability Specification Version 1.3 Revision 6” cited in the IDs filed on 1/17/2025) in view of Wong et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0041343 and hereinafter referred to as Wong).
As to claim 1, TCG discloses an apparatus for access management at a trust agent, comprising:
a memory (sections 3.6.5 and 6.1, TCG teaches a memory); and
a processor coupled to the memory (sections 3.6.5 and 6.1, TCG teaches a processor), the processor configured to:
receive attestation information from a device requesting access to services or resources provided by a service managing entity (sections 3.4.1, 3.6.1, 3.6.5 and 3.9, TCG teaches a network access authority receives integrity measurements from a network access requestor);
evaluate the attestation information for the device based on an updateable policy (sections 3.4.1, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.9, 4.2 and 5.2, TCG teaches determining if the integrity measurements comply with a security policy using an IMV, where the policy can be updated); and
enforce the updateable policy to the device for the services or the resources provided by the service managing entity based on evaluation of the attestation information (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.9, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1, TCG teaches enforcing the policy by allowing or denying access.). TCG does not specifically disclose wherein the updateable policy is adaptively configurable based on a set of network factors as claimed. However, Wong does disclose
wherein the updateable policy is adaptively configurable based on a set of network factors (paragraphs [0013], [0020], [0044] and [0045], Wong teaches dynamic policy updating (e.g. access level) based on network traffic/load.).
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 invention of TCG with the teachings of Wong for having the updateable policy be adaptively configurable based on a set of network factors because this would improve efficiency and user experience.
Claims 15 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and are therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
As to claim 2, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attestation information includes first attestable information that is associated with or managed by a first verification entity and second attestable information that is associated with or managed by a second verification entity (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.9 and 11, TCG teaches multiple IMVs may be used to evaluate aspects of the requestor’s integrity.).
As to claim 3, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first verification entity includes the trust agent (sections 3.4.1, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.9, 4.2 and 5.2, TCG teaches IMV is trusted for attestation.).
As to claim 4, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first verification entity includes a trusted third party different than the trust agent (sections 4 and 6.1, TCG teaches using a third party.).
As to claim 5, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to evaluate the attestation information for the device based on the updateable policy, the processor is configured to: evaluate the attestation information for the device based on one or more verification results associated with a subset of attestable information of the attestation information in addition to the updateable policy (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.9, 5.2, 5.3 and 11, TCG teaches multiple IMVs evaluating different integrity measurements and combining results based on the policy.).
Claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 5 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 5 above.
As to claim 7, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein, to evaluate the attestation information for the device based on the one or more verification results associated with the subset of attestable information of the attestation information in addition to the updateable policy, the processor is configured to: evaluate the one or more verification results based on attestable parameters provided by the service managing entity via the updateable policy (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.9, 4.2 and 5.2, TCG teaches evaluating different integrity measurements and combining results based on the policy, where an overall access decision is determined based on the policy and results.).
As to claim 14, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a wireless communication device (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.9, 4.2, 5.2 and 7.1.1, TCG teaches wireless communication devices.).
Claim(s) 6, 8-13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TCG and Wong as applied to claims 1, 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Hardjono et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0143629 and hereinafter referred to as Hardjono).
As to claim 6, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 5. The combination of teachings between TCG and Wong does not specifically disclose wherein the subset of attestable information of the attestation information is based on one or more of: an operational purpose associated with the device, a trust level associated with the device, and a life-cycle state associated with the device as claimed. However, Hardjono does disclose
wherein the subset of attestable information of the attestation information is based on one or more of: an operational purpose associated with the device, a trust level associated with the device, and a life-cycle state associated with the device (paragraph [0043], Hardjono teaches information may include role information which is considered to be an operational purpose associated with the device.).
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 modified invention of TCG with the teachings of Hardjono for having the subset of attestable information of the attestation information is based on one or more of: an operational purpose associated with the device, a trust level associated with the device, and a life-cycle state associated with the device because this would improve security.
As to claim 8, the combination of teachings between TCG and Wong disclose the apparatus of claim 1. The combination of teachings between TCG and Wong does not specifically disclose wherein, to enforce the updateable policy to the device, the processor is configured to: enforce a set of actions, wherein the set of actions comprises one or more actions of the updateable policy selected based on a device trust score and a trust score threshold as claimed. However, Hardjono does disclose
wherein, to enforce the updateable policy to the device, the processor is configured to: enforce a set of actions, wherein the set of actions comprises one or more actions of the updateable policy selected based on a device trust score and a trust score threshold (paragraphs [0044] and [0100], Hardjono teaches tiered access for different thresholds based on a trust score.).
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 modified invention of TCG with the teachings of Hardjono for enforcing a set of actions, wherein the set of actions comprises one or more actions of the updateable policy selected based on a device trust score and a trust score threshold because this would improve security.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 8 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 8 above.
As to claim 9, the combination of teachings between TCG, Wong and Hardjono disclose the apparatus of claim 8 wherein the apparatus further includes a transceiver coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, via the transceiver, the trust score threshold (paragraphs [0044] and [0100], Hardjono teaches tiered access for different thresholds based on a trust score) from the service managing entity via the updateable policy (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.9, 4.2 and 5.2, TCG teaches network communication.).
Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of the references as in claim 8 above.
As to claim 10, the combination of teachings between TCG, Wong and Hardjono disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the device trust score is based on an evaluation of verification results associated with the attestation information (paragraphs [0069]-[0071], Hardjono teaches the trust score is based on integrity evaluations.).
Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of the references as in claim 8 above.
As to claim 11, the combination of teachings between TCG, Wong and Hardjono disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein, to enforce the set of actions, the processor is configured to: enforce the set of actions to the device (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.9, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1, TCG teaches enforcing the policy by allowing or denying access.).
As to claim 12, the combination of teachings between TCG, Wong and Hardjono disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein, to enforce the set of actions, the processor is configured to: enforce a first subset of actions of the set of actions to the device; and cause the device to enforce a second subset of actions of the set of actions to the device (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.9, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1, TCG teaches sending instructions for enforcing the policy by allowing or denying access.).
Claim 18 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 12 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 12 above.
As to claim 13, the combination of teachings between TCG, Wong and Hardjono disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein, to enforce the set of actions, the processor is configured to: cause one or more trusted third parties to enforce at least one action of the set of actions to the device (sections 3.4.2, 3.6.1, 3.6.5, 3.9, 4, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3 and 6.1, TCG teaches using a third party for policy enforcement.).
Claim 19 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 13 and is therefore, rejected for similar reasons to claim 13 above.
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 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 THADDEUS J PLECHA whose telephone number is (571)270-7506. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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 Arani can be reached at 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 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.
/THADDEUS J PLECHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
