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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “for zero touch provisioning” and “for secure zero touch provisioning”. For zero touch provisioning and for secure zero touch provisioning are interpreted as intended use and will not be given patentable weight for claim interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanthisamy et al. (US 20150215161).
Regarding claim 1, Nanthisamy teaches
A network device configured to perform self-provisioning, the network device comprising: memory circuitry; and processing circuitry coupled to the memory circuitry and configured to:
receive bootstrapping data from external equipment; ([0041], “the authorization information may be used to decrypt/decode the package and the network device can begin the bootstrapping process. However, if the key used by the network device does not match the key used by the NMS to encrypt the package, then the network device will be unable to decrypt the package. For example, the user of the mobile device may have transferred the package to the incorrect network device by accident. Nonetheless, because of the authorization information, the network device can independently verify if it is the intended target.”)
identify a characteristic of the received bootstrapping data; ([0042], “the network device determines whether it is the intended target using the authorization information. If so, at block 320, the network device initiates the bootstrap process using the information in the package. If not, at block 420, the network device may discard the transferred packet. In one embodiment, the network device may also inform the mobile device, using the NFC link, that it was not the intended target of the package. The mobile device may then instruct the user to send the package to the correct network device.”)
adjust the received bootstrapping data based on the identified characteristic; and ([0042], “the network device determines whether it is the intended target using the authorization information. If so, at block 320, the network device initiates the bootstrap process using the information in the package. If not, at block 420, the network device may discard the transferred packet. In one embodiment, the network device may also inform the mobile device, using the NFC link, that it was not the intended target of the package. The mobile device may then instruct the user to send the package to the correct network device.”)
process the adjusted bootstrapping data to perform a device self- provisioning operation. ([0042], “the network device determines whether it is the intended target using the authorization information. If so, at block 320, the network device initiates the bootstrap process using the information in the package. If not, at block 420, the network device may discard the transferred packet. In one embodiment, the network device may also inform the mobile device, using the NFC link, that it was not the intended target of the package. The mobile device may then instruct the user to send the package to the correct network device.”)
Regarding claim 10, Nanthisamy teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform an inspection of the received bootstrapping data and wherein the characteristic of the received bootstrapping data is identified based on the inspection of the received bootstrapping data. ([0042], “the network device determines whether it is the intended target using the authorization information.”)
Regarding claim 12, Nanthisamy teaches wherein the external equipment comprises a server that maintains the bootstrapping data. ([0022], “a system 200 for bootstrapping the network device 105 using a configuration package transmitted from the mobile device 150, according to one embodiment described herein. System 200 also includes computing device 205 which may be used to generate the configuration package 245 that is then loaded onto the mobile device 150. Specifically, the computing device 250 includes a network management system (NMS) 255 that may store information about one or more network (e.g., a business's private network). For instance, the NMS 255 may include network routing information, passwords, network topology, information about the network devices in the network, and the like. In one embodiment, the NMS 255 stores the configuration settings of each device as a file. Using the information stored in the NMS 255, a network engineer may generate the configuration package 245 which is then transferred onto the mobile device 150.”)
As to claims 15 and 18, Nanthisamy teaches these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 1.
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) 1-3, 7, 11, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watsen et al. (US 20200213191) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20170212487).
Regarding claim 1, Watsen teaches
A network device configured to perform self-provisioning, the network device comprising: memory circuitry; and processing circuitry coupled to the memory circuitry and configured to: ([0004], “the disclosure describes techniques for performing a secure remote bootstrapping operation of a network device. To reduce the technical complexity of configuring a network device to an unsophisticated user, conventional devices may use the Zero-touch Provisioning (ZTP) to remotely and automatically perform a first-time configuration of a network device for use within an enterprise network.”)
receive bootstrapping data from external equipment; ([0078], “upon startup, network device 14 performs a first touchless provisioning operation to request, from DHCP server 16, address information for bootstrap server 18 (404). In response, DHCP server 16 provides the address information as a list of one or more bootstrap servers 18 from which network device 14 may obtain configuration information (406).”)
process the adjusted bootstrapping data to perform a device self-provisioning operation. ([0081], “Network device 14 processes the onboarding information to determine whether the first initialization of network device 14 has occurred. In response to determining that the first initialization has occurred, network device 14 performs a bootstrapping operation (418). As examples of bootstrapping operations, network device 14 configure itself for remote management by another network device (e.g., orchestrator server 20)”)
Watsen does not teach but Gupta teaches
identify a characteristic of the received bootstrapping data; ([0186], “Corruption detector 614 may detect corruption in hardware and/or software (e.g., firmware, applications, etc.) and alert self-provisioning module 164. Self-provisioning module 164 may use corruption information to trigger subsequent actions (e.g., initiating provisioning of building equipment of BMS 20). Corruption may be defined as any fault of a component of BMS 20. For example, corruption can be an incorrect firmware version installed in BMS 20 for a hardware component in communication with BMS 20.”, [0209], “the predetermined condition may be determined automatically by main controller 30. For example, main controller 30 may have a preset collection of conditions which must be detected in order for flow 800 to continue, such as at least two of: a corruption of firmware, an outdated software version, and a configuration mismatch.”)
adjust the received bootstrapping data based on the identified characteristic; and
([0210], “In other embodiments, main controller 30 may receive the update file as part of a push update from the network (e.g., from a remote system or device). Main controller 30 may access the update file from anywhere.”)
process the adjusted bootstrapping data to perform a device self-provisioning operation. ([0207], “ in which main controller 30 and/or self-provisioning module 164 determines whether a predetermined condition has been satisfied. … Main controller 30 may determine whether a mismatch in configuration data has occurred” and [0210-211], “main controller 30 may download or otherwise obtain the update file. … main controller 30 determines that a predetermined trigger has occurred. The predetermined trigger may be the predetermined condition which was satisfied and may cause main controller 30 to automatically initiate the self-provisioning process.”)
Gupta is cited to teach a similar concept of self-provisioning. Gupta teaches that a version or configuration mismatch can cause an adjustment/update to before the full self-provisioning is completed. Based on Gupta, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Watsen to check for version or configuration issues before performing completing the self-provisioning. Furthermore, being able to check for and adjust for errors/mismatches improves on Watsen by being able to self-provision error free without human intervention. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “In some embodiments, the new method may proceed without human intervention upon detection of a firmware or configuration mismatch”, [0168]
Regarding claim 2, Gupta teaches wherein the identified characteristic is indicative of content in the received bootstrapping data that is incompatible with the device self- provisioning operation and wherein the received bootstrapping data is adjusted by replacing the content with replacement content that is compatible with the device self-provisioning operation. ([0207], “ in which main controller 30 and/or self-provisioning module 164 determines whether a predetermined condition has been satisfied. … Main controller 30 may determine whether a mismatch in configuration data has occurred” and [0210-211], “ main controller 30 may download or otherwise obtain the update file. … main controller 30 determines that a predetermined trigger has occurred. The predetermined trigger may be the predetermined condition which was satisfied and may cause main controller 30 to automatically initiate the self-provisioning process.”)
Regarding claim 3, Gupta teaches wherein the content comprises a bootstrapping script or a configuration file. ([0199], “self-provisioning module 164 may replace an outdated configuration file”)
Regarding claim 7, Watsen and Cannizzaro do not teach but Gupta teaches wherein the identified characteristic comprises a first version of a programming language, wherein the content is based on the first version of the programming language, and wherein the replacement content is based on a second version of the programming language. ([0186], “Corruption detector 614 may detect corruption in hardware and/or software (e.g., firmware, applications, etc.) and alert self-provisioning module 164. Self-provisioning module 164 may use corruption information to trigger subsequent actions (e.g., initiating provisioning of building equipment of BMS 20). Corruption may be defined as any fault of a component of BMS 20. For example, corruption can be an incorrect firmware version installed in BMS 20 for a hardware component in communication with BMS 20.”)
Regarding claim 11, Gupta teaches wherein the bootstrapping data is received from the external equipment in a bootstrapping data file, wherein the bootstrapping data file includes a header containing file metadata and includes a body containing the bootstrapping data, and wherein the characteristic of the received bootstrapping data is identified based on the file metadata. ([0042], “The update file may include a plurality of partitions, each partition containing metadata and provisioning data. The metadata may identify a specific control unit (e.g., by name, by type, etc.) and the provisioning data may include firmware updates, configuration updates, or application updates for the identified control unit.”)
Regarding claim 14, Gupta teaches wherein the adjusted bootstrapping data comprises an adjusted configuration file and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to process the adjusted bootstrapping data by storing the adjusted configuration file on the memory circuitry. ([0199], “self-provisioning module 164 may replace an outdated configuration file”)
Regarding claim 17, Watsen teaches wherein the one or more criteria comprise a criterion that is met when the un-provisioned network device is connected to a power source, a criterion that is met when the un-provisioned network device is communicatively coupled to a network, or a criterion that is met when the un-provisioned network device lacks an initial configuration. ([0006], “wherein the one or more criteria comprise a criterion that is met when the un-provisioned network device is connected to a power source, a criterion that is met when the un-provisioned network device is communicatively coupled to a network, or a criterion that is met when the un-provisioned network device lacks an initial configuration.”)
As to claims 15 and 18, Watsen and Gupta teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 1.
As to claims 16 and 19, Watsen and Gupta teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 7.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watsen and Gupta as applied to claim 3 and 18, respectively above, and further in view of Wannowius et al. (EP 3220263).
Regarding claim 4, Gupta teaches and wherein the configuration file is a configuration file 164 may replace an outdated configuration file”)
Watsen and Gupta do not teach but Wannowius
wherein the bootstrapping script is a bootstrapping script re-configuration script may be built in step 4020 to replace the respective entry/entries in the affected configuration file at the first boot of the instance 1 after individualization.”)
Wannowius is cited to teach a similar concept of self-provisioning. Wannowius using a re-configuration/boot script during self-provisioning. Based on Wannowius, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Watsen and Gupta to use a re-configuration/boot script during self-provisioning. Furthermore, being able to use a re-configuration/boot script during self-provisioning improves on Watsen and Gupta by being able to reduce the number of configuration files thereby improving efficiency. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “ the number of identified configuration files can be significantly reduced, thereby reducing the amount of time needed for the analysis and thus improving the overall efficiency.”, [0013]
As to claims 8 and 20, Watsen, Gupta, and Wannowius teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9, and 13 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 CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 September 5, 2026
/JAWEED A ABBASZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights