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 § 103
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) 1-4, 7-10, 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norrod et al., (US Publication No. 2023/0091028), hereinafter “Norrod”, and further in view of Main-Reade et al., (US Publication No. 2021/0088999), hereinafter “Main-Reade”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, Norrod discloses
cryptographic identity management in an industrial control system including a plurality of entities [Norrod, paragraph 4, Techniques for authenticating industrial devices associated with an industrial process in an industrial automation environment], each of the plurality of entities configured to be switched between a non- operational mode and an operational mode [Norrod, paragraph 23, online / offline], the method comprising:
during a setup phase, defining a public key for a first entity of the plurality of entities and generating a private key for the first entity while the first entity is in the non-operational mode [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline];
during an operational phase in which the first entity is in the operational mode [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline], identifying a second entity of the plurality of entities that is in the non-operational mode, and defining a public key for the second entity and generating a private key for the second entity while the second entity is in the non-operational mode [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline];
Norrod does not specifically disclose, however Main-Reade teaches
receiving, from one or more of the first entity or the second entity, a request for an online identity status while the first entity and the second entity are in the operational mode [Main-Reade, paragraph 102, figure 14]; and
transmitting, to the one or more of the first entity or the second entity, a response including the online identity status, wherein the one or more of the first entity or the second entity is configured to use the online identity status to perform one or more of an encryption operation or a signature operation [Main-Reade, paragraph 102, figure 14].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to receive a request for the identity status in order to provide and maintain security for the devices.
It would have been obvious to combine Main-Reade with Norrod as each art relates to maintaining security for devices.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 14, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein defining the public key for the first entity and generating the private key for the first entity further comprises defining the public key for the first entity and generating the private key for the first entity using one of an identity-based encryption scheme or a hierarchical identity-based encryption scheme [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline].
Regarding claims 3, 9, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein defining the public key for the second entity and generating the private key for the second entity further comprises defining the public key for the second entity and generating the private key for the second entity using one of an identity-based encryption scheme or a hierarchical identity-based encryption scheme [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline].
Regarding claims 4, 10, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein generating the private key for the first entity further comprises generating the private key for the first entity using a first private key generator, and wherein generating the private key for the second entity further comprises generating the private key for the second entity using a second private key generator different from the first private key generator [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 16, figure 1].
Regarding claim 15, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein the one or more private key generators comprises a first private key generator configured to generate the private key for a first entity of the plurality of entities and a second private key generator configured to generate the private key for a second entity of the plurality of entities [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 16, figure 1].
Regarding claim 18, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein the one or more private key generators are configured to define one or more public keys for the one or more identity revocation servers and generate one or more private keys for the one or more identity revocation servers [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline].
Regarding claim 19, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein the one or more private key generators are offline [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline].
Regarding claim 20, Norrod-Main-Reade further discloses
wherein the one or more identity revocation servers are online [Norrod, paragraphs 4, 22-23, private / public keys online / offline].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11-12 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J GOODCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-1589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/William J. Goodchild/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights