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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (“Osborne”, US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (“Fujiwara”, US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (“Ito”, US 20240039723).
Regarding Claim 1, Osborne teaches an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising (Fig. 2, element 200, par 34; The IHS is the data processing system 200.):
a processor (Fig. 2, elements {200, 204}, par 34; The IHS is the data processing system 200.);
and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to (Fig. 2, elements {200, 204, 206}, par 34; The IHS is the data processing system 200.):
receive, at an onboarding service, a (transfer log) that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device (par 39; par 48; The onboarding service is the transfer manager 246.);
obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a (device) (par 39; par 48; The onboarding service is the transfer manager 246.);
Osborne does not explicitly teach a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the (server) against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; ownership voucher.
Fujiwara teaches a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA) (par 116);
validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the (server) against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner (par 116-118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne with the certificate authority of Fujiwara because it is a third-party organization that performs tasks related to certification such as issuing the electronic certificate of the second target (Fujiwara; par 111), thereby improving security and trust between entities.
Osborne and Fujiwara do not explicitly teach onboard the device upon successful validation; ownership voucher.
Ito teaches onboard the device upon successful validation (Fig. 8, elements {S12-S15}, par 90-92);
ownership voucher (par 142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne and Fujiwara with the verification of Ito because it further allows for preventing cyber attacks by making sure that an attacker is not authorized as the proper owner of the device (Ito; par 39), thereby improving security.
Regarding Claim 12, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne further teaches wherein the onboarding service is configured to store a record of the validation, including the certificate chain and revocation status, for auditing purposes (par 39; par 48-49; The onboarding service is the transfer manager 246.).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito in view of Payson et al (“Payson”, 20260163729).
Regarding Claim 2, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito do not explicitly teach wherein the certificate comprises a custom x509 extension that defines an ownership scope.
Payson teaches wherein the certificate comprises a custom x509 extension that defines an ownership scope (par 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito with the short-term certificates of Payson because it ensures that users do not have access to a system longer than necessary, thereby improving security.
Regarding Claim 14, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne further teaches wherein the onboarding service is configured to onboard the device using a certificate (par 39; par 48; The onboarding service is the transfer manager 246.).
Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito do not explicitly teach certificate comprising an x509 extension specifying ownership scope.
Payson teaches certificate comprising an x509 extension specifying ownership scope (par 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito with the short-term certificates of Payson because it ensures that users do not have access to a system longer than necessary, thereby improving security.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito in view of Tripathi et al (“Tripathi”, 20210359865).
Regarding Claim 3, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito do not explicitly teach wherein the certificate comprises a Domain Name System (DNS) name corresponding to the name.
Tripathi teaches wherein the certificate comprises a Domain Name System (DNS) name corresponding to the name (par 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito with the DNS name of Tripathi because it allows for users to use human-readable names as web addresses instead of complex IP addresses, thereby making communication easier.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito in view of Fu et al (“Fu”, 20110126001).
Regarding Claim 9, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito do not explicitly teach wherein the onboarding service is configured to reissue certificates for the device in response to a certificate expiration or revocation without modifying the ownership voucher.
Fu teaches wherein the onboarding service is configured to reissue certificates for the device in response to a certificate expiration or revocation without modifying the ownership voucher (par 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito with the reissuing of certificates of Fu because it allows for renewing of certificates without requiring a user to take extra action.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito in view of Gray et al (“Gray”, 20210392002).
Regarding Claim 10, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito do not explicitly teach wherein the onboarding service is configured to utilize intermediate CAs to issue certificates.
Gray teaches wherein the onboarding service is configured to utilize intermediate CAs to issue certificates (par 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito with the intermediate certificate authorities of Gray because it allows for the computational load to be distributed among different devices, rather than focused on one server, thereby improving performance and efficiency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito in view of Rykowski et al (“Rykowski”, 20170155640).
Regarding Claim 15, Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito teach the IHS of claim 1.
Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito do not explicitly teach wherein the onboarding service allows coexistence of CA-based ownership and private cryptographic credential-based ownership mechanisms.
Rykowski teaches wherein the onboarding service allows coexistence of CA-based ownership and private cryptographic credential-based ownership mechanisms (par 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Osborne, Fujiwara, and Ito with the credential management system of Rykowski because the use of single sign-on allows for the accessing other services using a single set of credentials (Rykowski; par 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11, 13, and 20 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.
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 4, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein to validate the name in the ownership voucher against the name in the certificate, the onboarding service is configured to check a certificate chain.
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein to validate the name in the ownership voucher against the name in the certificate, the onboarding service is configured to check a certificate revocation status.
Regarding Claim 6, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein the device is onboarded independently of any private cryptographic credentials managed by the prospective owner.
Regarding Claim 7, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein the onboarding service is configured to support a plurality of trusted CAs to mitigate risks associated with CA revocation.
Regarding Claim 8, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein the ownership voucher comprises a plurality of names corresponding to multiple prospective owners, and the onboarding service is configured to validate ownership for each name using respective certificates.
Regarding Claim 11, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein the onboarding service is configured to onboard the device using a certificate that includes wildcard Domain Name System (DNS) names to define ownership scope across subdomains.
Regarding Claim 13, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive, at an onboarding service, an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtain, by the onboarding service, a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validate, by the onboarding service, the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboard the device upon successful validation; wherein the onboarding service is configured to support dynamic specification of CAs within the ownership voucher.
Regarding Claims 16-18, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach a memory device having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of a device, cause the device to: generate an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of the device; transmit the ownership voucher to an onboarding service; receive a certificate issued by the onboarding service and attested by a Certificate Authority (CA); validate the certificate; determine that the name in the ownership voucher matches a name in the certificate; and establish trust with the onboarding service in response to the determination.
Regarding Claim 20, the closest prior art of record Osborne (US 20170180132) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 20250106045) in further view of Ito et al (US 20240039723) and in even further view of Vanczak (US 20160189147) does not teach a method, comprising: receiving an ownership voucher that includes a name corresponding to a prospective owner of a device; obtaining a certificate issued by a certificate authority (CA); validating the name in the ownership voucher against a name in the certificate to establish device ownership by the prospective owner; and onboarding the device upon successful validation; wherein the device is onboarded independently of any private cryptographic credentials managed by the prospective owner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vanczak (US 20160189147), Abstract - The invention relates to a method for authenticating a user (10) at an entity (16), the method comprising the steps of detecting, by means of a contact module (20) of the entity (16), a contacting of the user (10) made in a browser of a terminal (12), and sending, by means of the contact module (20), a network address of an authentication module (24) of the entity (16) to a mobile device (14) of the user (10) in an authentication message, verifying the acceptability of an entity certificate of the authentication module (24) by means of the mobile device (14) based on the network address, and verifying acceptability of a user certificate of the mobile device (14) by means of the authentication module (24), and in case the entity certificate and the user certificate are acceptable, authenticating the user (10) at the entity (16) by establishing a communication channel (114, 120, 114, 120) between the mobile device (14) and the authentication module (24), whereas in case the entity certificate or the user certificate is not acceptable, rejecting the user (10) at the entity 16. The invention also relates to a system for authenticating a user (10) at an entity (16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights