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 .
This action is in response to the claims filed 8/14/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1 (a machine), 7 (a method), and 13 (a computer readable medium) are independent.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 (which depend on claims 1, 5, and 9) of U.S. Patent No. 12, 413,420. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presently presented claims recite a subset of the limitations of the claims 4, 8, and 12 of ‘420.
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 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the computer readable medium of claim 13 is reasonably interpreted as a signal bearing media. Signal bearing media are non-statutory; see MPEP 2106.03.I
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process.
Exemplary claim 1 states that a node of a cluster should be attested to based on measurements and that an indicator of the attestation should be provided to other nodes. This act is analogous to a human user performing any checking of a device and configuring the network to accept the device; in other words, a long performed IT professional act. Consider a human IT professional receiving a new piece of hardware, accessing the configuration port to ensure the password, network addresses, or other firmware characteristics are as desired, then acting to establish it within the network. These acts having been performed by humans for as long as configurable network devices have existed.
Although the claim purports to automate the human mental process by use of processing circuitry, and sending/receiving data, are instructions to “apply it” and well understood, routine, conventional activities that do not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)) or significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP2106.05(d)(II)).
Examiner notes that the attestation of measurements is generic and the manner of attestation and the indicator yielded therefrom are also generic. This makes the claim more of an idea than a technical description that might constitute an improvement to a computer or technology. Additionally, although the ‘indicator is broadest’ no use of the indicator is specified; therefore, there is no practical application of the claims.
The dependent claims set forth further properties of the indicator (e.g. claims 2-5) or extra solution activity of selecting certain processor types (claim 6) and do not constitute a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7-18 are similar to claims 1-6 and are rejected for the reasons noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wentz, US 11,240,025 (filed 2019).
As to claims 1, 7, and 13, Wentz discloses a machine/method/CRM comprising:
initiate attestation of a processing node (“an exemplary embodiment of a method 300 for verifying a remote device joining a network using trusted hardware is illustrated. At step 305, a verifying node receives an authorization request from a remote device 108.” Wentz col. 30, ln. 1) of a cluster of processing nodes; (“any remote device 108 can act as a first verifying node 104; likewise, any device that acts as first verifying node 104 may also be able to act as a remote device 108.” Wentz col. 20, ln. 58. Wentz col. 29, ln. 47, cluster)
receive a first set of measurements associated with the processing node; (“authentication may include verification of a manufacturer or other device signature of a verification datum linked to device identifier, including without limitation a device-specific public key and/or verification datum or a group public key and/or verification datum as described above.” Col. 39, ln. 15. “an output of a PUF 120 may be used to generate a private key for a digital signature as described above. Alternatively or additionally, a PUF 120 output may constitute a secret to be used as a basis for a zero-knowledge proof” Wentz Col. 37, ln. 27)
verify the first set of measurements to obtain an indicator; and (“at step 310 first verifying node 104 authenticates remote device 108.” Wentz col. 38, ln. 59 “at step 315 first verifying node 104 generates an authorization token.” Wentz col. 47, ln. 17)
broadcast the indicator to one or more processing nodes of the cluster. (“sharing may include inserting the authorization token may be recorded in a temporally sequential listing, such as without limitation verified device registry 132.” Wentz col. 52, ln. 63. The sequential listing being a blockchain as illustrated in Wentz Fig. 2. Wentz col. 23, ln. 56. Note that Applicant’s specification ¶ 43 states that publishing is a broadcast.)
As to claims 2, 8, and 14, Wentz discloses the machine/method/CRM of claims 1, 7, and 13 and further discloses:
wherein the indicator indicates passing or failing of the processing node based on results of the attestation, (“the authorization token to prove that a remote device 108 has been verified and/or granted some type of privilege and/or access as to the network.” Wentz col. 52, ln. 57) wherein the first set of measurements are verified based on the results of the attestation process. (“at step 310 first verifying node 104 authenticates remote device 108.” Wentz col. 38, ln. 59 “at step 315 first verifying node 104 generates an authorization token.” Wentz col. 47, ln. 17)
As to claims 4, 10, and 16, Wentz discloses the machine/method/CRM of claims 1, 7, and 13 and further discloses:
wherein broadcasting comprises broadcasting supporting data associated with the indictor (“Such a verification datum may be included in authorization token as described in further detail below, permitting remote device 108 to demonstrate its link to the token by providing a corresponding secure proof on demand.” Wentz col. 37, ln. 49) to the one or more processing nodes of the cluster. (“sharing may include inserting the authorization token may be recorded in a temporally sequential listing, such as without limitation verified device registry 132.” Wentz col. 52, ln. 63. The sequential listing being a blockchain as illustrated in Wentz Fig. 2. Wentz col. 23, ln. 56. Note that Applicant’s specification ¶ 43 states that publishing is a broadcast.)
As to claims 5, 11, and 17, Wentz discloses the machine/method/CRM of claims 4, 10, and 16 and further discloses:
wherein the indicator and the supporting data to promote secure communication between the processing node and the one or more processing nodes, (“a authorization token may contain at least one of the following attributes: a secure timestamp indicating the time that the token was created, a monotonic counter value or other datum unique to the authorization token for this particular remote device 108, and/or a session key conferring access to the network at the time of token creation.” Wentz col. 49, ln. 35. See also Wentz col. 54, ln. 26) wherein the processing nodes comprise computing devices. (“any remote device 108 of plurality of remote devices 108 may be configured to perform any method and/or method steps as disclosed herein, in any order and with any degree of repetition including without limitation performance of secure proofs, storage tasks, authentication tasks, or the like.” Wentz col. 20, ln. 48)
As to claims 6, 12, and 18, Wentz discloses the machine/method/CRM of claims 1, 7, and 13 and further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry comprises one or more of application processing circuitry (“circuits or software besides secure processor. …. a process to digitally sign and/or encrypt using keys may be coded using logic circuits, field-programmable arrays, read-only memory,” Wentz col. 18, ln. 22. Also Fig. 5. see also Applicant’s specification ¶ 39 listing CPU as a processing circuitry.) or graphics processing circuitry.
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) 3, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wentz, US 11,240,025 (filed 2019), in view of Le Saint et al., US 2016/0218875 (US 2016/0218875).
As to claims 3, 9, and 15, Wentz discloses the machine/method/CRM of claims 1, 7, and 13 and further discloses:
(“An authentication determination may include a verification datum associated with at least a remote device 108 and/or a group including at least a remote device 108, which may in turn be signed by one or more verifying nodes with an entry one or more authorization and/or authentication rights granted to an associated device;” Wentz col. 40, ln. 6)
Wentz does not disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further to obtain a certificate chain associated with the processing node.
Taylor discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is further to obtain a certificate chain associated with the processing node.
(“The web service 40 optionally staples intermediate authorities of the received signed activity authorisation token at step S216 to establish an uninterrupted chain of certificates to the root of trust (RoT) and to check the RoT of the signed activity authorisation token. This prevents the remote IoT device 50 having to download missing/expired intermediate certificates to verify the certificate chain leading to the root of trust.” Taylor ¶ 34. “The signed authorisation of the management activity verifies that the management activity has been approved by a legitimate operator who is permitted to authorise the management activity and that the identity of the operator has been authenticated by verifying whether the certificate chain of the operator leads to an authorized root of trust known to the device 50.” Taylor ¶ 41)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Wentz with Taylor by including the certificate chain certificates in the token of Wentz for verifying the signature of Wentz col. 40, ln. 6. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wentz with Taylor in order to allow entities to verify the verifying nodes signature of the authorization token without having to separately download chained certificates to validate the chain, Taylor ¶ 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, particularly: Cook, US 11,475,726, disclosing End to end verification of an election run over a public network.
Soundararajan et al., US 2020/0044831, discloses using distributed attestation to verify claim of attestation holder.
Hill et al., US 2021/0176255, discloses a method for providing attestation of data integrity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-5165. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 8-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights