CTNF 19/041,567 CTNF 96641 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1-20 are pending Priority This patent claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/627,033, which was filed on Jan. 30, 2024. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 01/30/2024 Drawings Applicants’ drawings filed on 01/30/2025 has been inspected and it is in compliance with MPEP 608.02. Specification The specification filed on 01/30/2025 and 04/25/2025 are acceptable for examination proceedings. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 3-6, and 8 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 3-6, and 8 recite the limitation “the instructions”. Examiner suggests amending this to “the machine-readable instructions” . Appropriate correction is required. Claims 5 and 18 recite the limitation “each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh to process attestation inputs”. Examiner suggests amending this to “each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh processes attestation inputs”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 recites the limitation “synchronized across the verifier mesh according to distributed ledger technology, one or more of the at least one processor circuit to post”. Examiner suggests amending this to “synchronized across the verifier mesh according to distributed ledger technology, and one or more of the at least one processor circuit to post”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 recites the limitation “within a defined quantum window defined according to a”. Examiner suggests amending this to “within a defined quantum window which is defined according to a”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 18 recites the limitation “within a defined quantum window defined by”. Examiner suggests amending this to “within a defined quantum window which is defined by”. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 6, 7, 9, and 16 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation " the shared ACS ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a shared ACS”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 recites the limitation " the same attestation input". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a same attestation input”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 9 and 16 recite the limitation “relying party identifies as interesting”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “interesting”. Furthermore, “interesting” is a relative term. For the purpose of examination Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “claim sets of the … ACS that the relying party is generating attestation results for.”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 1 satisfied the statutory category requirement because it is directed to a “non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions” under 35 U.S.C. 101(a). The claim recites a series of steps being performed by a processor circuit. Step 2A, Prong 1 – Judicial Exception (Abstract Area) The claim recites at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least: obtain an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester, the verifier mesh including a plurality of verifiers; update the ACS based on the attestation evidence; and cause the ACS to be transmitted to the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh. The limitation of obtain an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester, the verifier mesh including a plurality of verifiers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester. The limitation of update the ACS based on the attestation evidence, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually update the ACS. The limitation of cause the ACS to be transmitted to the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually transmit the ACS to a plurality of verifiers. Step 2A, Prong 2 – Integration into a practical Application This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites of obtaining, updating, and transmitting an accepted claims set. The claim does not recite any limitation to implement these limitations into a practical application. The claim recites of transmitting the ACS to a plurality of verifiers. However, merely transmitting the ACS does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B- “Significantly More” (Inventive concept) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element of “processor circuit” recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing the process) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor circuit. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic processor circuit cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the ACS is append-only. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine an ACS is append-only. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the ACS is a shared ACS, and the plurality of verifiers use distributed ledger technology to synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh, the shared ACS is an ACS ledger, and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to update the ACS ledger by posting an ACS record to the ACS ledger. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine a ACS is shared, use distributed ledger technology to synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh, and update the ACS ledger by posting an ACS record to the ACS ledger. Simply storing data in a distributed ledger does not integrate the integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the ACS is a shared ACS and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to periodically synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine the ACS is shared and periodically synchronize the ACS based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to obtain the attestation input within a defined quantum window using a synchronized clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh, each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh to process attestation inputs obtained within the defined quantum window. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain the attestation input within a defined quantum window. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the ACS is a first partial ACS generated by a first verifier of the verifier mesh, the attestation input further includes a second partial ACS generated by a second verifier of the verifier mesh, and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to update the shared ACS based on the first partial ACS and the second partial ACS. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine a first partial ACS, a second partial ACS, and update the shared ACS based on the first partial ACS and the second partial ACS. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein each verifier of the plurality of verifiers produces an identical ACS given the same attestation input. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine each verifier of the plurality of verifiers produces an identical ACS given the same attestation input. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of obtain an appraisal policy from a relying party; and generate attestation results based on the ACS and the appraisal policy. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain an appraisal policy from a relying party and generate attestation results based on the ACS and the appraisal policy. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the ACS is an attestation-based content-defined network and the appraisal policy describes a view of the ACS that contains claim sets of the ACS that the relying party identifies as interesting. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine ACS is an attestation-based content-defined network and the appraisal policy describes a view of the ACS that contains claim sets of the ACS that the relying party identifies as interesting. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the ACS is obtained from a first verifier of the verifier mesh via a conceptual message wrapper message. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain from a first verifier of the verifier mesh via a conceptual message wrapper message. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 11 satisfied the statutory category requirement because it is directed to a “apparatus” under 35 U.S.C. 101(a). The claim recites a series of steps being performed by a processor circuit. Step 2A, Prong 1 – Judicial Exception (Abstract Area) The claim recites an apparatus comprising: machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to: obtain an attestation input including a first accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester, the verifier mesh including a plurality of verifiers; generate a second ACS based on the first ACS and the attestation evidence; and cause the second ACS to be transmitted to the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh. The limitation of obtain an attestation input including a first accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester, the verifier mesh including a plurality of verifiers, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester. The limitation of generate a second ACS based on the first ACS and the attestation evidence, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can generate a second ACS. The limitation of cause the second ACS to be transmitted to the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be performed in the mind. A user can manually transmit the ACS to a plurality of verifiers. Step 2A, Prong 2 – Integration into a practical Application This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites of obtaining, generating, and transmitting an accepted claims set. The claim does not recite any limitation to implement these limitations into a practical application. The claim recites of transmitting the second ACS to a plurality of verifiers. However, merely transmitting the second ACS does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B- “Significantly More” (Inventive concept) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element of “processor circuit” recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing the process) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor circuit. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic processor circuit cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein a plurality of ACSs are synchronized across the verifier mesh according to distributed ledger technology, one or more of the at least one processor circuit to post a record of the second ACS to an ACS ledger shared by the plurality of verifiers. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine a plurality of ACSs are synchronized across the verifier mesh according to distributed ledger technology. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to periodically transmit the second ACS to the plurality of verifiers based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually periodically transmit the second ACS to the plurality of verifiers based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to obtain the attestation input within a defined quantum window defined according to a clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain the attestation input within a defined quantum window defined according to a clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: obtain an appraisal policy from a relying party; and generate attestation results based on the second ACS and the appraisal policy. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain an appraisal policy from a relying party and generate attestation results based on the second ACS and the appraisal policy. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the second ACS is an attestation-based content-defined network and the appraisal policy describes a view of the second ACS that contains claim sets of the second ACS the relying party identifies as interesting. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine the second ACS is an attestation-based content-defined network and the appraisal policy describes a view of the second ACS that contains claim sets of the second ACS the relying party identifies as interesting. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, this claim recites of features similar to that of claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the same rejection and analysis apply. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the attestation input is obtained within a defined quantum window defined by a synchronized clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service shared by the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh, each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh to process attestation inputs obtained within the defined quantum window. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine the attestation input is obtained within a defined quantum window and each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh to process attestation inputs obtained within the defined quantum window. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein the attestation input is a first attestation input, further including: obtaining a second attestation input including a third ACS of the verifier mesh; and generating a fourth ACS based on the second attestation input. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually obtain a second attestation input including a third ACS of the verifier mesh and generating a fourth ACS based on the second attestation input. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites of wherein an order in which the first attestation input and the second attestation input are obtained does not affect the fourth ACS that is generated. Therefore, the limitations of this claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can also be performed in the mind. A user can manually determine an order in which the first attestation input and the second attestation input are obtained does not affect the fourth ACS that is generated. The dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are directed to abstract ideas and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6-9, 11, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (US-20170126647-A1) in view of KIM (US-20230292129-A1), hereinafter ZHANG-KIM . Regarding claim 1 , ZHANG teaches “At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising machine-readable instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least: obtain an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester, the verifier mesh including a plurality of verifiers; ([ZHANG, para. 0033] “Based on the information gathered regarding the one or more nodes, the attester may determine and report on the properties and trustworthiness of the nodes to a verifier, such as a cloud-based security management system. For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, attester node 21 may provide one or more attestation report messages 302 to a verifier device in server(s) 150. Attestation report message 302 may include, for example, data indicative of the properties of nodes 31-32, as determined by node 21 (e.g., observed traffic properties, device configurations, etc.). In some embodiments, attestation report message 302 may include a summary of the observed behaviors of nodes 31-32. … all or a subset of attesters can be required to also attest to the trustworthiness of their own software, hardware, and/or runtime behavior. For example, attestation report message 302 may further include data that attests to a property of node 21 and/or the trustworthiness of node 21.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0050] “Layer-1 attesters 506 with sufficient resources can also act as local verifiers to further determine whether the observed traffic patterns reveal abnormal or malicious activities and then vouch for their findings to the higher layer attesters or verifiers.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0051] “Above Layer-1 attesters 506 in architecture 500 may be one or more Layer-2 attesters 508.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “In particular, Layer-2 attester 508 can attest to the properties/characteristics of the combined traffic represented in the attestation reports from the Layer-1 attesters 506. In one embodiment, the Layer-2 attester 508 may also act as a local verifier for the Layer-1 attesters 506. For example, the Layer-2 attester 508 may analyze the attestation reports is from Layer-1 attesters 506, potentially combined with information from other sources, to detect abnormal or malicious activities. … devices that can only send, but not receive, data may attest to their own trustworthiness. This may lead to more trustworthy attestation reports, to help the verifiers to detect false attestations.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “The one or more Layer-2 attesters 508 may attest to their findings to even higher layer attesters or remote verifiers. For example, as shown, Layer-2 attester 508 may provide its findings to a remote verifier 512 (e.g., in servers 150).”) ([ZHANG, para. 0056] “architecture 500 can be mapped to map a crowd attestation topology to the network, based on which devices are observed nodes, attesters, and/or verifiers.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0026] “attesters that attest to their own properties as well as to the properties of one or more other nodes in the network”) ([ZHANG, para. 0037] “attester(s) may capture a snapshot of the node's properties and confirm the heath of the node.”) [ Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting the attestation reports as an accepted claims set (ACS) and report including properties of the attesters including trustworthiness and health as claimed operating state of an attester .] … cause the ACS to be transmitted to the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh. ([ZHANG, para. 0038] “a verifier may collect attestation reports from the various attesters in the network and use the report information to evaluate the trustworthiness of the overall system, as illustrated in FIG. 3C.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0050] “Layer-1 attesters 506 with sufficient resources can also act as local verifiers to further determine whether the observed traffic patterns reveal abnormal or malicious activities and then vouch for their findings to the higher layer attesters or verifiers.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “Layer-2 attester 508 can attest to the properties/characteristics of the combined traffic represented in the attestation reports from the Layer-1 attesters 506. In one embodiment, the Layer-2 attester 508 may also act as a local verifier for the Layer-1 attesters 506.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0053] “The one or more Layer-2 attesters 508 may attest to their findings to even higher layer attesters or remote verifiers. For example, as shown, Layer-2 attester 508 may provide its findings to a remote verifier 512 (e.g., in servers 150).”) However, ZHANG does not teach “… update the ACS based on the attestation evidence; and … ” In analogous teaching KIM teaches “… update the ACS based on the attestation evidence; and … ([KIM, para. 0057] “Operation S230 is a process of each of the nodes updating the network message using a consensus protocol. After the integrity of nodes broadcasting received network messages is verified using the consensus protocol, each of the nodes may update the network message by combining the remote attestation result value recorded in the network message and remote attestation result values recorded (or updated) in the network messages of the nodes with verified integrity.”) ([KIM, para. 0066] “each node periodically broadcasts information about a state thereof to neighboring nodes connected thereto. Every node updates states of neighboring nodes upon receiving information, and each new node repeatedly performs this process, thus converging on the same consensus on the states of all nodes of a network.”) ([KIM, para. 0068] “operation S230 includes each node verifying its integrity using a consensus protocol (S910), and each of the nodes updating a network message thereof using a network message of at least one node with verified integrity (S920), wherein each of the nodes may obtain remote attestation result values of the other nodes through the updated network message.”) Thus, given the teaching of KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of updating the ACS by KIM into the teaching of obtaining an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester by ZHANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because KIM recognizes the need to efficiently attest multiple nodes ([KIM, para. 0049] “The present disclosure may have the following advantages. First, an efficient data structure for collecting results using the Bloom filter is provided to reduce runtime performance and expand the number of devices when joining or leaving a network. Second, each device (node) is allowed to reach the convergence of a network state snapshot through the collection of remote attestation certificates. Here, the snapshot may be understood as a final network state in which a self-remote attestation result value of each node is collected.”) Regarding claim 11 , this claim recites of an apparatus that performs the features of independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, KIM teaches “… generate a second ACS based on the first ACS and the attestation evidence; …” ([KIM, para. 0066] “each node periodically broadcasts information about a state thereof to neighboring nodes connected thereto. Every node updates states of neighboring nodes upon receiving information, and each new node repeatedly performs this process, thus converging on the same consensus on the states of all nodes of a network.”) ([KIM, para. 0068] “operation S230 includes each node verifying its integrity using a consensus protocol (S910), and each of the nodes updating a network message thereof using a network message of at least one node with verified integrity (S920), wherein each of the nodes may obtain remote attestation result values of the other nodes through the updated network message.”) ([KIM, para. 0111] “By repeatedly performing operations S1220 and S1230, when each of the nodes converges on a final network snapshot message”) [Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting updating network messages based on consensus to reach a final network message as a second ACS .] The same motivation to modify ZHANG with KIM as in the rejection of claim 1 applies. Furthermore, ZHANG teaches “… cause the second ACS to be transmitted to the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh.” ([ZHANG, para. 0038] “Generally, a verifier may collect attestation reports from the various attesters in the network and use the report information to evaluate the trustworthiness of the overall system”) ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “Layer-2 attester 508 can attest to the properties/characteristics of the combined traffic represented in the attestation reports from the Layer-1 attesters 506. In one embodiment, the Layer-2 attester 508 may also act as a local verifier for the Layer-1 attesters 506.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0053] “The one or more Layer-2 attesters 508 may attest to their findings to even higher layer attesters or remote verifiers. For example, as shown, Layer-2 attester 508 may provide its findings to a remote verifier 512 (e.g., in servers 150).”) [ Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting the layer 2 attestor acting as a verifier sending its report to the remote verifier as a second ACS .] Regarding claim 17 , this claim recites of a method that performs the features of claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11. Regarding claim 6 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 1. ZHANG further teaches “wherein the ACS is a first partial ACS generated by a first verifier of the verifier mesh, ([ZHANG, para. 0050] “Conversely, Layer-1 attesters 506 with sufficient resources can also act as local verifiers to further determine whether the observed traffic patterns reveal abnormal or malicious activities and then vouch for their findings to the higher layer attesters or verifiers.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0038] “Generally, a verifier may collect attestation reports from the various attesters in the network and use the report information to evaluate the trustworthiness of the overall system”) the attestation input further includes a second partial ACS generated by a second verifier of the verifier mesh, ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “In particular, Layer-2 attester 508 can attest to the properties/characteristics of the combined traffic represented in the attestation reports from the Layer-1 attesters 506. In one embodiment, the Layer-2 attester 508 may also act as a local verifier for the Layer-1 attesters 506. For example, the Layer-2 attester 508 may analyze the attestation reports is from Layer-1 attesters 506, potentially combined with information from other sources, to detect abnormal or malicious activities.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0053] “The one or more Layer-2 attesters 508 may attest to their findings to even higher layer attesters or remote verifiers. For example, as shown, Layer-2 attester 508 may provide its findings to a remote verifier 512 (e.g., in servers 150).”) KIM further teaches “… and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to update the shared ACS based on the first partial ACS and the second partial ACS. ([KIM, para. 0057] “Operation S230 is a process of each of the nodes updating the network message using a consensus protocol. After the integrity of nodes broadcasting received network messages is verified using the consensus protocol, each of the nodes may update the network message by combining the remote attestation result value recorded in the network message and remote attestation result values recorded (or updated) in the network messages of the nodes with verified integrity.”) ([KIM, para. 0123] “When a network snapshot message of the monitoring unit 1340 converges on a final network snapshot message, the monitoring unit 1340 monitors remote attestation of each node constituting the network on the basis of a remote attestation result value updated in the network message.) The same motivation to modify ZHANG with KIM as in the rejection of claim 1 applies. Regarding claim 7 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 1. ZHANG further teaches “wherein each verifier of the plurality of verifiers produces an identical ACS given the same attestation input. ([ZHANG, para. 0035] “In turn, node 21 may send an attestation report (e.g., via message 302) to the verifier, to identify node 31 as compromised. Further, if multiple attesters in the system report a similar attack pattern, the verifier(s) will have a better chance to confirm the attack and narrow down the source(s) of the attack.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0038] “Generally, a verifier may collect attestation reports from the various attesters in the network and use the report information to evaluate the trustworthiness of the overall system, as illustrated in FIG. 3C. For example, a verifier device in server(s) 150 may cross reference traffic patterns received from the deployed attesters, to detect abnormal communication behaviors (e.g., attempts to access unauthorized destinations, etc.) and/or identify misbehaving devices (e.g., misconfigured devices, etc.).”) Regarding claims 8 and 15 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claims 1 and 11. ZHANG further teaches “wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to: obtain an appraisal policy from a relying party; and ([ZHANG, para. 0031] “The set of one or more nodes for which a device is to act as an attester may be controlled via a policy distributed to the attester and/or to the one or more nodes. In one embodiment, such a policy may be a security policy that takes into account the capabilities of the nodes. For example, node 21 may act as an attester on behalf of nodes 31-32 based on a security policy that authorizes only certain devices types to act as attesters (e.g., devices from authorized manufacturers, devices specified by an administrator, etc.). Assume, for instance, that nodes 31-32 are devices manufactured by a manufacturer that is not on an approved list in the security policy.”) generate attestation results based on the ACS and the appraisal policy. ([ZHANG, para. 0038] “To perform such evaluations, the verifier may also combine the information from the received attestation reports with additional information received from other sources, such as the designed behaviors of the system, operational and security policies, communication principles, or any other additional threat intelligence.”) Regarding claims 9 and 16 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claims 8 and 15. ZHANG further teaches “wherein the ACS is an attestation-based content-defined network ([ZHANG, para. 0016] “Data packets 140 (e.g., traffic and/or messages sent between the devices/nodes) may be exchanged among the nodes/devices of the computer network 100 using predefined network communication protocols”) ([ZHANG, para. 0044] “Accordingly, in various embodiments, an attester may perform a deeper inspection of the traffic packets and their payloads. For example, node 21 may perform deep packet inspection (DPI) on the traffic of nodes 31-32, as part of its attestation functions.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0033] “For example, as shown in FIG. 3B, attester node 21 may provide one or more attestation report messages 302 to a verifier device in server(s) 150. Attestation report message 302 may include, for example, data indicative of the properties of nodes 31-32”) [ Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting data packets being exchanged between notes as a content defined network, the messages including attestation report messages ] and the appraisal policy describes a view of the ACS that contains claim sets of the ACS that the relying party identifies as interesting. ([ZHANG, para. 0031] “The set of one or more nodes for which a device is to act as an attester may be controlled via a policy distributed to the attester and/or to the one or more nodes. In one embodiment, such a policy may be a security policy that takes into account the capabilities of the nodes. For example, node 21 may act as an attester on behalf of nodes 31-32 based on a security policy that authorizes only certain devices types to act as attesters (e.g., devices from authorized manufacturers, devices specified by an administrator, etc.). Assume, for instance, that nodes 31-32 are devices manufactured by a manufacturer that is not on an approved list in the security policy.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0040] “node 21 may begin observing the behaviors of nodes 31-32 and logging the observed information.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0031] “Attestation report message 302 may include, for example, data indicative of the properties of nodes 31-32, as determined by node 21 (e.g., observed traffic properties, device configurations, etc.). In some embodiments, attestation report message 302 may include a summary of the observed behaviors of nodes 31-32. Further, attestation report message 302 may include data indicative of a degree of trustworthiness of nodes 31-32 and their associated properties.”) [ Examiner’s note: Examiner is interpreting attestation report messages of nodes 31-32 as set of ACS identified as interesting.] Regarding claim 19 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 17. ZHANG further teaches “wherein the attestation input is a first attestation input, further including: obtaining a second attestation input including a third ACS of the verifier mesh; and generating a fourth ACS based on the second attestation input.” ([ZHANG, para. 0036] “Attestation reports may be sent at various times and on a pull or push basis. For example, an attester may send attestation reports to the verifier periodically, in response to a request from the verifier, or in response to detecting a significant change in the determined property of the one or more observed nodes.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “Layer-2 attester 508 can attest to the properties/characteristics of the combined traffic represented in the attestation reports from the Layer-1 attesters 506. In one embodiment, the Layer-2 attester 508 may also act as a local verifier for the Layer-1 attesters 506. For example, the Layer-2 attester 508 may analyze the attestation reports is from Layer-1 attesters 506, potentially combined with information from other sources, to detect abnormal or malicious activities.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0053] “The one or more Layer-2 attesters 508 may attest to their findings to even higher layer attesters or remote verifiers”) Regarding claim 20 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 19. ZHANG further teaches “wherein an order in which the first attestation input and the second attestation input are obtained does not affect the fourth ACS that is generated.” ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “For example, the Layer-2 attester 508 may analyze the attestation reports is from Layer-1 attesters 506, potentially combined with information from other sources, to detect abnormal or malicious activities. For instance, if one of the attestation reports from a particular Layer-1 attester conflicts with the reports from other related Layer-1 attesters, the Layer-2 attester may determine that the trustworthiness of the particular Layer-1 attester is low and potentially flag this attester as compromised.”) ([ZHANG, para. 0053] “The one or more Layer-2 attesters 508 may attest to their findings to even higher layer attesters or remote verifiers. For example, as shown, Layer-2 attester 508 may provide its findings to a remote verifier 512 (e.g., in servers 150). As would be appreciated, the hierarchy shown in FIG. 5 is for purposes of illustration only and any number of layers of attesters and verifiers may be used in other embodiments.”) [ Examiner’s note: The layer 2 attester acting as a verifier is receiving multiple reports from layer-1 attesters, therefore, the order does not matter for the layer 2 verifier attesting its findings to a higher remote verifier .] 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG-KIM in view of WRIGHT (US-20220069993-A1) Regarding claim 2 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 1. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein the ACS is append-only”. In analogous teaching WRIGHT teaches “wherein the ACS is append-only. ([WRIGHT, para. 0044] “Aggregator 16 independently computes the hash of the message content. In step 420, Aggregator 16 compares the hash value computed in step 418 with the decrypted hash value. If the computed hash and the decrypted hash values do not match, Aggregator 16 rejects the message in step 422. Otherwise, if the hash values match, the method proceeds to step 424, in which Aggregator 16 attests sender verification and appends this attestation to the message.”) Thus, given the teaching of WRIGHT, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the ACS is append-only by WRIGHT into the teaching of obtaining an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester by ZHANG-KIM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because WRIGHT recognizes the need to verify messages ([WRIGHT, para. 0003] “what is needed is a global solution that enables MNOs to efficiently and permanently disable a spamming enterprise and a way to monetize verified legitimate messaging traffic.”) ([WRIGHT, para. 0004] “In an embodiment, the invention pertains to a method of verifying a media object (e.g., a message) sent via a telecommunication network. The message is sent from a sending entity to a receiving entity.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG-KIM in view of BERNAT (US-20220116224-A1) Regarding claim 3 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 1. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein the ACS is a shared ACS, and the plurality of verifiers use distributed ledger technology to synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh, the shared ACS is an ACS ledger, and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to update the ACS ledger by posting an ACS record to the ACS ledger”. In analogous teaching BERNAT teaches “wherein the ACS is a shared ACS, ([BERNAT, para. 0071] “In some examples, the event data generated at a node (e.g., the edge node A 508) is attested by each of the other nodes (e.g., the edge node B 512 and the edge node C 514) in the edge constellation 500. If event data generated at a node (e.g., the edge node A 508) is attested by the other nodes in the edge constellation 500, the node (e.g., the edge node A 508) can add the event data to a block in the blockchain 516.”) and the plurality of verifiers use distributed ledger technology to synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh, ([BERNAT, para. 0069] “The example edge constellation 500 of FIG. 5 also includes a blockchain 516. The example blockchain 516 includes attestable information generated by the edge constellation 500 ordered by sequence and by timestamp. For example, the blockchain block 516 can include a list of blocks (e.g., records) of discrete events that have occurred within the edge constellation. Each block can include a hash of a previous block, a timestamp, and event data. The example blockchain 516 is accessible by each of the edge nodes (e.g., the edge node A 508, the edge node B 512, and the edge node C 514) of the edge constellation 500.”) the shared ACS is an ACS ledger, ([BERNAT, para. 0069] “The example edge constellation 500 of FIG. 5 also includes a blockchain 516. The example blockchain 516 includes attestable information generated by the edge constellation 500 ordered by sequence and by timestamp.”) and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to update the ACS ledger by posting an ACS record to the ACS ledger. ([BERNAT, para. 0076] “Additionally, the edge node (e.g., the edge node B 512) may also attest the additional data sent by the peer edge node … Each node (e.g., the edge node B 512, the edge node C 514) that attests the event data transmits a message back to the event data originating node (e.g., the edge node A 508) informing that the event data is attested. If each of the peer nodes attests the event data, the data originating node (e.g., the edge node A 508) sends the validated event data including the hash (Z) and the timestamps (T0, T1) to the blockchain 516.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0115] “the example blockchain block logic circuitry 634 adds the event data to the blockchain 516. For example, the blockchain block logic circuitry 634 adds a block to the blockchain 516 of the edge constellation 500 corresponding to the event data.”) Thus, given the teaching of BERNAT, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of wherein the ACS is a shared ACS by BERNAT into the teaching of obtaining an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester by ZHANG-KIM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because BERNAT recognizes the need to improve attestation methods ([BERNAT, para. 0143] “Disclosed systems, methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture improve upon known attestation methods by attesting event data using KPI values which are trusted due to KPI sensors being implemented in a trustworthy computing architecture that makes tampering difficult.”) Regarding claims 4 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 1. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein the ACS is a shared ACS and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to periodically synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol.” In analogous teaching BERNAT teaches “wherein the ACS is a shared ACS and the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to periodically synchronize the shared ACS across the verifier mesh based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol. ([BERNAT, para. 0069] “The example edge constellation 500 of FIG. 5 also includes a blockchain 516. The example blockchain 516 includes attestable information generated by the edge constellation 500 ordered by sequence and by timestamp.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0069] “The example edge constellation 500 of FIG. 5 also includes a blockchain 516. The example blockchain 516 includes attestable information generated by the edge constellation 500 ordered by sequence and by timestamp. For example, the blockchain block 516 can include a list of blocks (e.g., records) of discrete events that have occurred within the edge constellation. Each block can include a hash of a previous block, a timestamp, and event data. The example blockchain 516 is accessible by each of the edge nodes (e.g., the edge node A 508, the edge node B 512, and the edge node C 514) of the edge constellation 500.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0076] “If each of the peer nodes attests the event data, the data originating node (e.g., the edge node A 508) sends the validated event data including the hash (Z) and the timestamps (T0, T1) to the blockchain 516.”). The same motivation to modify ZHANG-KIM with BERNAT as in the rejection of claim 3 applies. Regarding claim 12 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 11. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein a plurality of ACSs are synchronized across the verifier mesh according to distributed ledger technology, one or more of the at least one processor circuit to post a record of the second ACS to an ACS ledger shared by the plurality of verifiers.” In analogous teaching BERNAT teaches “wherein a plurality of ACSs are synchronized across the verifier mesh according to distributed ledger technology, one or more of the at least one processor circuit to post a record of the second ACS to an ACS ledger shared by the plurality of verifiers.” ([BERNAT, para. 0071] “In some examples, the event data generated at a node (e.g., the edge node A 508) is attested by each of the other nodes (e.g., the edge node B 512 and the edge node C 514) in the edge constellation 500. If event data generated at a node (e.g., the edge node A 508) is attested by the other nodes in the edge constellation 500, the node (e.g., the edge node A 508) can add the event data to a block in the blockchain 516.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0076] “Additionally, the edge node (e.g., the edge node B 512) may also attest the additional data sent by the peer edge node … Each node (e.g., the edge node B 512, the edge node C 514) that attests the event data transmits a message back to the event data originating node (e.g., the edge node A 508) informing that the event data is attested. If each of the peer nodes attests the event data, the data originating node (e.g., the edge node A 508) sends the validated event data including the hash (Z) and the timestamps (T0, T1) to the blockchain 516.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0115] “the example blockchain block logic circuitry 634 adds the event data to the blockchain 516. For example, the blockchain block logic circuitry 634 adds a block to the blockchain 516 of the edge constellation 500 corresponding to the event data.”) The same motivation to modify ZHANG-KIM with BERNAT as in the rejection of claim 3 applies. Regarding claim 13 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 11. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to periodically transmit the second ACS to the plurality of verifiers based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol.”. In analogous teaching BERNAT teaches “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to periodically transmit the second ACS to the plurality of verifiers based on a synchronization protocol or a consensus protocol.” ([BERNAT, para. 0069] “The example edge constellation 500 of FIG. 5 also includes a blockchain 516. The example blockchain 516 includes attestable information generated by the edge constellation 500 ordered by sequence and by timestamp.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0069] “The example edge constellation 500 of FIG. 5 also includes a blockchain 516. The example blockchain 516 includes attestable information generated by the edge constellation 500 ordered by sequence and by timestamp. For example, the blockchain block 516 can include a list of blocks (e.g., records) of discrete events that have occurred within the edge constellation. Each block can include a hash of a previous block, a timestamp, and event data. The example blockchain 516 is accessible by each of the edge nodes (e.g., the edge node A 508, the edge node B 512, and the edge node C 514) of the edge constellation 500.”) ([BERNAT, para. 0076] “If each of the peer nodes attests the event data, the data originating node (e.g., the edge node A 508) sends the validated event data including the hash (Z) and the timestamps (T0, T1) to the blockchain 516.”). The same motivation to modify ZHANG-KIM with BERNAT as in the rejection of claim 3 applies . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG-KIM in view of BERNAT (US-20220116224-A1) and further in view of STEINBERG (US-10447728-B1) Regarding claims 5 and 18 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claims 1 and 17. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to obtain the attestation input within a defined quantum window using a synchronized clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh, each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh to process attestation inputs obtained within the defined quantum window.”. In analogous teaching BERNAT teaches “wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to obtain the attestation input within a defined … window using a synchronized clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh, each verifier of the plurality of verifiers in the verifier mesh to process attestation inputs obtained within the defined … window. ([BERNAT, para. 0114] “The machine readable instructions and/or operations 900 of FIG. 9 begin at block 902, at which the device timestamp coordination circuitry 610 synchronizes the clock time of the example edge device A 510 (FIG. 5) with the other devices and/or nodes of the example edge constellation 500 (FIG. 5). For example, the device timestamp coordination circuitry 610 coordinates the current clock time of the example edge device A 510 using an NTP protocol to synchronize the clock of the edge device A 510 to UTC. At block 904, the example data generating circuitry 608 generates event data (e.g., image data, sensor data).”) ([BERNAT, para. 0115] “example request logic circuitry 630 transmits via the example node connection interface 616 the event data and/or processed event data, the signature, and one or more timestamps to peer nodes 632 of the edge constellation 500 for attestation. For example, the request logic circuitry 630 transmits the attestation data to the edge node B 512 and the edge node C 514. At block 914, the example request logic circuitry 630 checks if the event data has been attested.”) The same motivation to modify ZHANG-KIM with BERNAT as in the rejection of claim 3 applies. However, ZHANG-KIM-BERNAT does not teach of “… quantum window …”. In analogous teaching STEINBERG teaches “… quantum window …” ([STEINBERG, col. 10 Lines 48-55] “For the thread to execute on a CPU, its execution context is tightly linked to a scheduling context 336, which may be configured to provide information for scheduling the execution context 334 for execution on the CPU 210. Illustratively, the scheduling context information may include a priority and a quantum time for execution of its linked execution context on CPU 210.”) Thus, given the teaching of STEINBERG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of quantum window by STEINBERG into the teaching of obtaining an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester by ZHANG-KIM-BERNAT. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because STEINBERG recognizes the need to protect processes and virtual machines executing in a node ([STEINBERG, col. 1 Line 67, col. 2 lines 1-2] “a technique to protect the processes executing (as well as operating system data structures) in the virtual machines of the nodes is needed.”) ([STEINBERG, col. 2 Lines 38-41] “The embodiments described herein provide a technique for protecting guest processes of a guest operating system kernel using a virtualization layer of a virtualization architecture executing on a node of a network environment.”) Regarding claim 14 , ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 11. However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to obtain the attestation input within a defined quantum window defined according to a clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers.”. In analogous teaching BERNAT teaches “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to obtain the attestation input within a defined … window defined according to a clock, epoch beacon, time service, or bundling service to synchronize the plurality of verifiers.” ([BERNAT, para. 0114] “The machine readable instructions and/or operations 900 of FIG. 9 begin at block 902, at which the device timestamp coordination circuitry 610 synchronizes the clock time of the example edge device A 510 (FIG. 5) with the other devices and/or nodes of the example edge constellation 500 (FIG. 5). For example, the device timestamp coordination circuitry 610 coordinates the current clock time of the example edge device A 510 using an NTP protocol to synchronize the clock of the edge device A 510 to UTC. At block 904, the example data generating circuitry 608 generates event data (e.g., image data, sensor data).”) ([BERNAT, para. 0115] “example request logic circuitry 630 transmits via the example node connection interface 616 the event data and/or processed event data, the signature, and one or more timestamps to peer nodes 632 of the edge constellation 500 for attestation. For example, the request logic circuitry 630 transmits the attestation data to the edge node B 512 and the edge node C 514. At block 914, the example request logic circuitry 630 checks if the event data has been attested.”) The same motivation to modify ZHANG-KIM with BERNAT as in the rejection of claim 3 applies. However, ZHANG-KIM-BERNAT does not teach of “… quantum window …”. In analogous teaching STEINBERG teaches “… quantum window …” ([STEINBERG, col. 10 Lines 48-55] “For the thread to execute on a CPU, its execution context is tightly linked to a scheduling context 336, which may be configured to provide information for scheduling the execution context 334 for execution on the CPU 210. Illustratively, the scheduling context information may include a priority and a quantum time for execution of its linked execution context on CPU 210.”) The same motivation to modify ZHANG-KIM-BERNAT with STEINBERG as in the rejection of claim 5 applies . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG-KIM in view of DILL (US-20100251374-A1) Regarding claim 10, ZHANG-KIM teach all limitations of claim 1. ZHANG further teaches “wherein the ACS is obtained from a first verifier of the verifier mesh via a … message. ([ZHANG, para. 0052] “In one embodiment, the Layer-2 attester 508 may also act as a local verifier for the Layer-1 attesters 506. For example, the Layer-2 attester 508 may analyze the attestation reports is from Layer-1 attesters 506”) ([ZHANG, para. 0053] “For example, as shown, Layer-2 attester 508 may provide its findings to a remote verifier 512 (e.g., in servers 150). As would be appreciated, the hierarchy shown in FIG. 5 is for purposes of illustration only and any number of layers of attesters and verifiers may be used in other embodiments.”) However, ZHANG-KIM does not teach “conceptual message wrapper message”. In analogous teaching DILL teaches “conceptual message wrapper message” ([DILL, para. 0039] “In the disclosed embodiments, wrappers 340 may be used in the message sending process 330 that will add the appropriate data provenance information”) ([DILL, para. 0133] “The process begins at step 6050 and continues to step 6100 where the data provenance information analysis unit 250 may receive a message through the communication interface 270 having a data provenance wrapper.”) ([DILL, para. 0133] “The data provenance information may include message identification information, outgoing security attributes, timestamp, identification information of owner of signature, references, hash of an invariant part of the message, hash algorithm used, security label, authenticity objective information … integrity objective information”) Thus, given the teaching of DILL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of conceptual message wrapper message by DILL into the teaching of obtaining an attestation input including an accepted claims set (ACS) of a verifier mesh and attestation evidence indicative of a claimed operating state of an attester by ZHANG-KIM. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because DILL recognizes the need for data provenance in regards to communication devices ([DILL, para. 0008] “However, while work on data provenance exists, the concept has not been implemented in conventional communication devices for information assurance attributes, such as authenticity, confidentiality, integrity, non-repudiation and availability.”) ([DILL, para. 0009] “A method and apparatus that monitors and analyzes degree of trust and information assurance attributes information in a data providence architecture workflow is disclosed.”) Pertinent Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. DILLAWAY (US-20050132202-A1): This prior art teaches of establishing trust between first and second entities, the first entity sends an attestation message to the second entity, including a code ID, relevant data, a digital signature based on the code ID and data, and a certificate chain. The second entity verifies the signature and decides whether to in fact enter into a trust-based relationship with the first entity based on the code ID and the data in the attestation message. Upon so deciding, the second entity sends a trust message to the first entity, including a secret to be shared between the first and second entities. The first entity obtains the shared secret in the trust message and employs the shared secret to exchange information with the second entity. PAN (US-20220116387-A1): This prior art teaches of a remote attestation mode negotiation method and apparatus. Before remote attestation is performed, automatic negotiation is performed between a to-be-verified network device and a server, so that the to-be-verified network device and the server can determine, through negotiation from remote attestation modes supported by both the to-be-verified network device and the server, a remote attestation mode used to subsequently perform remote attestation between the network device and the server, and there is no need to manually statically configure a remote attestation mode for the network device and the server, thereby greatly reducing labor costs of determining the remote attestation mode. In addition, when there are a large quantity of devices, the automatic remote attestation mode negotiation method also helps configure a remote attestation mode more flexibly . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFAQ ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 5:30pm EST. 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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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. /A.A./ 04/28/2026 /AFAQ ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434 /NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434 Application/Control Number: 19/041,567 Page 2 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 19/041,567 Page 3 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 19/041,567 Page 4 Art Unit: 2434
Prosecution Insights