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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected due to being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites “A computer-readable storage device,” which in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), could comprise transmission media and transitory signals.
Regarding claims 16-20, the claims are rejected because they are dependent to a previous rejected claim.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 15 of issued Patent 12,229,241. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1, 9 and 15 of the reference patent covers all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application and, as such, anticipates claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application.
The dependent claims of the issued patent contain every element of the dependent claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate all of the dependent claims of the instant application.
Instant Application No. 19/047,909
Reference Patent No. 12,229,241
Claim 1: A method for validating secure assembly and delivery of an IHS (Information Handling System), the method comprising:
installing, during factory provisioning of the IHS, a certificate comprising a signed inventory identifying a plurality of hardware components installed during factory assembly of the IHS, wherein the certificate is uploaded to a non-removeable, persistent memory of the IHS, and wherein the certificate comprises a public key certificate generated in response to a CSR (Certificate Signing Request) generated by the IHS upon the factory provisioning of the IHS being initiated;
initiating, by the IHS upon its delivery and deployment, a pre-boot operating environment comprising a validation process that operates prior to booting an operating system of the IHS;
retrieving, by the validation process of the IHS, the certificate installed to the IHS during its factory provisioning;
utilizing, by the validation process of the IHS, a public key included in the certificate to validate the signed inventory of factory-installed hardware components included in the certificate was cryptographically signed by the IHS;
collecting, by the validation process of the IHS, an inventory of detected hardware components of the IHS; and
comparing, by the validation process of the IHS, the collected inventory of detected hardware components against the signed inventory of factory-installed hardware components from the certificate in order to validate the detected hardware components of the HIS as the factory-installed hardware components.
Claim 1: A method for validating secure assembly and delivery of an IHS (Information Handling System), the method comprising:
initiating, by the IHS, a pre-boot operating environment comprising a validation process that operates prior to booting an operating system of the IHS;
retrieving, by the validation process of the IHS, an inventory certificate uploaded to the IHS during factory provisioning of the IHS, wherein the inventory certificate includes a signed inventory identifying a plurality of hardware components installed during factory assembly of the IHS, wherein the inventory certificate is uploaded to a non-removeable, persistent memory of the IHS during the factory provisioning of the IHS, and wherein the inventory certificate is a public key identity certificate generated in response to a CSR (Certificate Signing Request) generated by the IHS during the factory provisioning of the IHS;
utilizing, by the validation process of the IHS, a public key included in the inventory certificate to validate the signed inventory was cryptographically signed by the IHS;
collecting, by the validation process of the IHS, an inventory of detected hardware components of the IHS; and
comparing, by the validation process of the IHS, the collected inventory of detected hardware components against the signed inventory from the inventory certificate uploaded to the IHS during factory provisioning of the IHS in order to validate the detected hardware components of the IHS as the same hardware components installed during factory assembly of the IHS.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to validating secure assembly and delivery of information handling systems.
a. BENEDICT et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0349836) discloses techniques of field-replaceable unit (FRU) secure component binding, comprising of retrieving a certified list of serial numbers that were bound to a hardware module from system memory and comparing it to one or more serial numbers read over a first interface.
b. Maass et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0159461) discloses techniques for device provisioning and authentication, comprising of utilizing certificate signing requests that includes a public key for the provisioning and authentication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights