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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claim listing filed on 04/09/2025. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2026 and 04/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/09/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 preamble should recite “A non-transitory computer readable memory storage medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dustman (US PGPUB No. 2016/0018878 A1) in view of Irwan et al. et al. (USPGPUB No. 2019/0245856 A1, hereinafter referred to as Irwan).
As per claim 1, Dustman discloses a method for controlling bus communication {“system 100” (see Fig. 1) including a subcomponent “automatic transfer switch controller 140” (see Fig. 1 [0018]) including performing a method for controlling bus communication “the bus segments of the various bus systems are connected together via isolation devices, then the combination of that bus will act as a single entity” (see Fig. 3, [0054], last sentence)}, applied to a main control board {“power management system 100”, see Fig. 1 [0017], 1st sentence}, wherein the main control board is connected to at least one load unit through a communication bus {at least one load unit “load control system independently if separated” (see Fig. 3 [0054], last two sentences) including a plurality of communication buses “other interconnected bus systems 310, 320, 330, 340, 350, 360, 370, and 380 illustrated in FIG. 4” (see Figs. 3 and 4) along with “single bus 314”};
Dustman does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the method comprising:
in response to detecting a master control authority transfer request sent by a first load unit, determining whether there is a target response requirement from a second load unit;
determining whether there is a master control authority;
and in response to that there is the master control authority and there is no target response requirement, transferring the master control authority to a target load unit corresponding to the master control authority transfer request.
However, Irwan discloses wherein the method comprising:
in response to detecting {“security gateway 170 may inspect [and detect] the request packages”, see Fig. 13, [0135], 1st sentence} a master control authority transfer request {“request packages for the permitted MQTT protocol… whether the device is subscribing or [master control] publishing”, see Fig. 13 [0135], 1st sentence} sent by a first load unit {“some [load unit] devices use the MQTT protocol to communicate, other may use the Modbus protocol”, see Fig. 1 [0006], last three sentences}, determining whether there is a target response requirement {“If the enterprise device 180 does not have [target response secure socket] SSH enabled and only has [an untargeted] Telnet available”, see Fig. 10 [0129], last sentence} from a second load unit {“a [plurality of load unit Modbus client 1102 may initiate a session with the security gateway 170 by providing a Modbus client ID”, see Fig. 11, [0130], 2nd sentence};
determining whether there is a master control authority {“to regulate [master control authority] access to the requested Modbus server 1104”, see Fig. 11, [0130], last two sentences; another example of master control authority when “if a user has administrator privileges, the administrator user will be cloned”, see Fig. 9, [0123], 1st sentence};
and in response to that there is the master control authority {“inspect the request packages for the permitted Modbus protocol, in contrast to other protocols”, see Fig. 11 [0131], 1st sentence} and there is no target response requirement {“If the enterprise device 180 does not have [target response secure socket] SSH enabled and only has [an untargeted] Telnet available”, see Fig. 10 [0129], last sentence}, transferring the master control authority to a target load unit {“the user may use the temporary username and password in a Telnet session with the virtual shell in the IFrame” and control the respective target load unit “that user on the enterprise device 180” (step 1018, see Fig. 10, [0128], last two sentences} corresponding to the master control authority transfer request {“virtual IAM services to generate a list of [target load unit(s)] enterprise devices that the authenticated user is authorized to [master control] access and present this list to the user” requested as claimed, see Fig. 10, [0127], 1st sentence}.
Dustman and Irwan are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, managing communication bus protocols between peripheral(s).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dustman and Irwan before him or her, to modify Dustman’s “SYSTEM 100” (see Fig. 1) incorporating Irwan’s “security gateway 170” and respective “enterprise devices” such as enterprise device 180 (see Figs. 10 and 13).
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to incorporate a single authentication portal that can accommodate devices that use different network protocols across multiple OSI layers and mitigates the security risks of devices that use hardcoded credentials (Irwan [0007]) while recognizing heavy processing client device processing resources surrounding traditional client devices and enterprise devices using different protocols (Irwan [0006], last two sentences).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Irwan with Dustman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Irwan discloses wherein after the determining whether there is the master control authority {“to regulate [master control authority] access to the requested Modbus server 1104”, see Fig. 11, [0130], last two sentences; another example of master control authority when “if a user has administrator privileges, the administrator user will be cloned”, see Fig. 9, [0123], 1st sentence}, the method further comprises:
in response to that there is no master control authority {“inspect the request packages for the permitted Modbus protocol, in contrast to other protocols”, see Fig. 11 [0131], 1st sentence} and there is a target response requirement {“security gateway 170 may also generate an [target response requirement] SSH key pair and use SSH to save the public key for that user”, see Fig. 10 [0128], last two sentences}, determining a host load unit with the master control authority {“to save the public key for that user on the [host load unit] enterprise device 180 at step 1018.”, see Fig. 10 [0128], last two sentences};
and revoking the master control authority of the host load unit {“add a script into the enterprise device that expires and [revoking master control authority] deletes temporary user accounts [of the host load unit] after a set period of time.”, see Fig. 10 [0125], last sentence}.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and Irwan discloses wherein the revoking the master control authority of the host load unit comprises:
detecting whether there is an ongoing data transmission task {“verify the integrity of each block of data and the integrity of the entire blockchain 150”, see Fig. 1, [0063], last three sentence} in the host load unit {“Enterprise services 110 may be services that are programmatically offered by an [host load unit] enterprise, including identity and access management (IAM) 120 services”, see Fig. 1 [0057], last sentence};
and in response to that there is the ongoing data transmission task in the host load unit {“when a device requests access from an enterprise server, the enterprise server may go through a validation process that is managed using programs executed in cooperation by the enterprise server and device”, see Fig. 1 [0058], 2nd sentence}, interrupting the data transmission task {“such as an MD5 or any other cryptographic hash function, may map each audit log to a hash, or index, such as an MD5 hash. The hash may act as a numerical representation of each audit log”, see Fig. 1, [0085] 2nd sentence} and revoking the master control authority of the host load unit {“add a script into the enterprise device that expires and [revoking master control authority] deletes temporary user accounts [of the host load unit] after a set period of time.”, see Fig. 10 [0125], last sentence}.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Irwan discloses wherein after the detecting whether there is the ongoing data transmission task in the host load unit {“when a device requests access from an enterprise server, the enterprise server may go through a validation process that is managed using programs executed in cooperation by the enterprise server and device”, see Fig. 1 [0058], 2nd sentence}, the method further comprises:
in response to that there is no ongoing data transmission task in the host load unit {“If the current hash matches the hash stored in the blockchain 150, then no changes have been made.”, see Fig. 1 [0087], last three sentences}, controlling the target load unit to release the master control authority {“The security gateway 170 also tracks all transactions to and from [controlling the target load units] each IoT device and stores those transactions in an audit log that may warn of potentially compromised devices”, see Figs. 3 and 4 [0088], last sentence} and revoking the master control authority {“add a script into the enterprise device that expires and [revoking master control authority] deletes temporary user accounts [of the host load unit] after a set period of time.”, see Fig. 10 [0125], last sentence}.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Irwan discloses wherein after the determining whether there is the master control authority, the method further comprises {“to regulate [master control authority] access to the requested Modbus server 1104”, see Fig. 11, [0130], last two sentences; another example of master control authority when “if a user has administrator privileges, the administrator user will be cloned”, see Fig. 9, [0123], 1st sentence}:
in response to that there is the master control authority {“inspect the request packages for the permitted Modbus protocol, in contrast to other protocols”, see Fig. 11 [0131], 1st sentence} and there is the target response requirement {“security gateway 170 may also generate an [target response requirement] SSH key pair and use SSH to save the public key for that user”, see Fig. 10 [0128], last two sentences}, locking the master control authority {“third client device may be [locking master control authority] designated an “admin” for the first enterprise device 180 and the second enterprise device 180 based on the access control lists for each of those devices”, see Fig. 2, [0077]};
and after a preset time interval {“The frequency of rotation may be customizable and based on days, weeks, months, years or any other incremental period of time.”, see Fig. 3, [0094], last sentence}, returning to the determining {“the security gateway 170 is not capable of properly authenticating using the new credentials, then the process is repeated [thereby returning to the claimed determining].”, Fig. 3, [0094], last two sentences} whether there is the target response requirement from the second load unit {“the enterprise device that expires and deletes temporary user accounts after a set period of time”, see Fig. 8, [0116], last two sentences}.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and Irwan discloses wherein the locking the master control authority comprises:
determining a load unit to be operated {“to generate [determining] a list of [load units] enterprise devices that the authenticated user is authorized to access and present this list to the user at step 1008”, see Fig. 10 [0127], 1st sentence} and a corresponding operation task {“[corresponding operation task(s)] All activities that occur during the authentication session may also be monitored and logged in the audit log data repository 255 for audit purposes by the audit log processing instructions 250”}, see Fig. 10, [0129] 2nd sentence} according to the target response requirement {“security gateway 170 may also generate an [target response requirement] SSH key pair and use SSH to save the public key for that user”, see Fig. 10 [0128], last two sentences} and a preset load unit priority {“To access the turbine, the factory default credentials are entered and then subsequently changed to custom credentials for security purposes”, see Figs. 2 and 3 [0071], 3rd sentence};
and in response to that the load unit to be operated has not completed the operation task {“when a device requests access from an enterprise server, the enterprise server may go through a validation process that is managed using programs executed in cooperation by the enterprise server and device [and not yet completed]”, see Fig. 1 [0058], 2nd sentence}, locking the master control authority {“third client device may be [locking master control authority] designated an “admin” for the first enterprise device 180 and the second enterprise device 180 based on the access control lists for each of those devices”, see Fig. 2, [0077]}.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Irwan discloses wherein before the in response to detecting {“security gateway 170 may inspect [and detect] the request packages”, see Fig. 13, [0135], 1st sentence} the master control authority transfer request sent by the first load unit {“request packages for the permitted MQTT protocol… whether the device is subscribing or [master control] publishing”, see Fig. 13 [0135], 1st sentence}, determining whether there is the target response requirement from the second load unit {“the enterprise device that expires and deletes temporary user accounts after a set period of time”, see Fig. 8, [0116], last two sentences}, the method further comprises:
obtaining identification information of each load unit {example step of identification information “multi-factor authentication may optionally be used such that users will be asked for additional information” (see Fig. 10 [0126], last two sentences) via obtaining “may use an [additional identification information] RBAC list associated with the virtual IAM services to generate a list of enterprise devices”};
generating a broadcast header according to the identification information {“[broadcast header] Role Based Access Control (RBAC) list that maps each user account associated with any client device 161” (see Fig. 1, [0076], last two sentences) accordingly claimed “Once the device HTTP server 504 receives the correct header and credentials” upon using the RBAC list ([see Fig. 5, [0105], 4th and 5th sentence respectively} and a preset broadcast communication instruction {“HTTP request to the device HTTP server 504 requesting the homepage”, see Fig. 5, [0105], 1st sentence};
and broadcasting and polling header information through the communication bus {“may gather [broadcasting] data from client devices and enterprise devices and then convert the data to be compatible [polling header]”, see Fig. 14, [0139], 2nd sentence} to verify whether there is a fault {“with high Byzantine fault tolerance”, see Fig. 1 [0142], sentence} on the communication bus {“compatible with [communication bus] Modbus, MQTT, and OPC UA protocols. For example, the security gateway 170 may translate a request or data from a device that uses Modbus into MQTT so that a device using MQTT can receive and process the request or data”, see Fig. 1, [0139], 2nd and 3rd sentences};
and wherein the in response to detecting {“security gateway 170 may inspect [and detect] the request packages”, see Fig. 13, [0135], 1st sentence} the master control authority transfer request {“request packages for the permitted MQTT protocol… whether the device is subscribing or [master control] publishing”, see Fig. 13 [0135], 1st sentence} sent by the first load unit {“some [load unit] devices use the MQTT protocol to communicate, other may use the Modbus protocol”, see Fig. 1 [0006], last three sentences}, determining whether there is the target response requirement {“If the enterprise device 180 does not have [target response secure socket] SSH enabled and only has [an untargeted] Telnet available”, see Fig. 10 [0129], last sentence} from the second load unit comprises {“a [plurality of load unit Modbus client 1102 may initiate a session with the security gateway 170 by providing a Modbus client ID”, see Fig. 11, [0130], 2nd sentence}:
in response to that there is no fault {“with high Byzantine fault tolerance”, see Fig. 1 [0142], sentence} and a master control authority transfer request {“request packages for the permitted MQTT protocol… whether the device is subscribing or [master control] publishing”, see Fig. 13 [0135], 1st sentence} sent by the first load unit is detected {“security gateway 170 may inspect [and detect] the request packages”, see Fig. 13, [0135], 1st sentence}, determining whether there is a target response requirement {“If the enterprise device 180 does not have [target response secure socket] SSH enabled and only has [an untargeted] Telnet available”, see Fig. 10 [0129], last sentence} from the second load unit {“a [plurality of load unit Modbus client 1102 may initiate a session with the security gateway 170 by providing a Modbus client ID”, see Fig. 11, [0130], 2nd sentence}.
Referring to claims 8-14 are apparatus claims reciting claim functionality corresponding to the method claims of claim 1-7, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claim 1-7 recited above.
Referring to claims 15 is a device claim reciting claim functionality corresponding to the method claims of claim 1, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 recited above.
Referring to claims 16 is a storage medium claim reciting claim functionality corresponding to the method claims of claim 1, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 recited above.
Referring to claims 17 is a computer program product claim reciting claim functionality corresponding to the method claims of claim 1, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are indicative the current state of the art regarding claim 1’s “controlling bus communication”, “load unit”, or “obtain identification information of each load unit” (claim 7): US 12316474 B2, US 20250023714 A1, US 20230236564 A1, US 11711743 B1, US 20220303841 A1, US 9959231 B2, US 20160327296 A1, US 10042413 B2, AND US 6745254 B2.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A. BARTELS whose telephone number is (571)270-3182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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.
/C. B./
Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
