DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10 July 2025 was not fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121 as set forth in the notice mailed 28 August 2025.
Applicant submitted a further response on 28 October 2025. While this response is also not clearly fully compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121 as set forth below, the response has been entered and considered as a courtesy. By this response, Claims 1 and 4-11 have been amended. Claims 12 and 14-20 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1 and 4-11 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims do not clearly comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) that amended claims must be submitted with markings indicating the changes made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. In particular, at least Claim 1 appears to include text, marked with double brackets for deletion, which was not previously present in the claim. Further, Claims 4 and 5 appear to include added text which has not been marked with underlining as required. For purposes of advancing prosecution and as a courtesy, the amendments to the claims have been entered and treated as though they were fully compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2). Applicant is reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2025 have been fully considered, portions of which are persuasive, and as such, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below. To the extent that Applicant’s arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection, they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Huang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2015/0301919, in view of Bhooshan et al, US Patent 9455233, and with reference to amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that Huang does not teach a change or adjustment to the self-damage triggering condition (pages 8-9 of the 10 July 2025 response); this aspect of the arguments is generally persuasive, but new grounds of rejection in light of the Wade reference are set forth below. Applicant further argues that Huang, individually, does not disclose a dynamic signal parameter because the “self-damage condition is fixed as a preset static value” (pages 8-9 of the 10 July 2025 response, no evidence cited). However, the dynamic signal parameter and the triggering condition are two separate elements. While Huang, individually, does not clearly teach or suggest a dynamic self-damage triggering condition, Huang does disclose a dynamic signal parameter for the dynamic signal to be output through the output port (see Huang, paragraphs 0044-0046, where different frequency composite signals are sent out one by one, i.e. the signals have a dynamic parameter). Applicant further argues that elements of Claims 4 and 5 are not taught by Huang (page 9 of the 10 July 2025 response, no evidence cited). However, Applicant merely relies on the alleged absence of dynamic signal parameters, which has been addressed above.
As noted above, new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure for informalities is NOT withdrawn, because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes grammatical and other errors. On page 5, line 23 (note that all page and line number references are to the marked-up copy of the substitute specification), it appears that an article (e.g. “a”, “the”) or other descriptor should be inserted before “signal”. Throughout the substitute specification, several instances of added text include different font or spacing than the remainder of the text; for example, as a non-exhaustive list, see page 8, line 26, “analyzing”; page 9, line 14, “and”; and page 11, line 5, “where” and “the”. On page 12, lines 11 and 13, it is not clear what the subject of “executes” is intended to be. On page 13, line 9, it is not clear what the subject of “returns” is intended to be. On page 13, line 16, it is not clear what the subject of “adjusts” is intended to be. On page 14, lines 12-14, the grammar of the verbs “takes”, “sets”, and “activates” is not clear following “specifically includes”. On page 14, line 22, it is not clear what the subject of “returns” is intended to be. On page 15, lines 16 and 17, it is not clear what the antecedent of the pronoun “is” is intended to be. On page 17, lines 3 and 5, it is not clear what the antecedent of the pronoun “is” is intended to be. On page 18, lines 6, 8, 9, 11, 24, and 26, it is not clear what the subjects of the verbs “executes”, “determines”, “obtains”, “stores”, and “returns” are intended to be. On page 19, lines 2, 3, 8, 9, and 21-23, and page 20, lines 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19, it is not clear what the subjects of the verbs “returns” and “sets” are intended to be. On page 21, the sentence at lines 12-16 is a run-on, noting the comma splice after “second present number of impulses”. On page 21, lines 17 and 19, the semicolons after “B6” and “B7” should be replaced with either commas or colons. On page 21, line 24, it is not clear what the subject of “executes” is intended to be. On page 22, line 5, a period is missing at the end of the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is moot in light of the cancellation of the claims. The rejection of Claims 1 and 4-11 is NOT withdrawn because not all issues have been addressed and/or because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A method for detecting a terminal” in line 1; however, it is not clear what in the claim would result in the result of “detecting” a terminal. The claim further recites “the self-damage triggering condition includes a count value of error filtering or a preset number of pulses” in lines 8-9. First, it is not clear how this phrase relates grammatically to the remainder of the claim, although it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause or similar. Further, it is not clear what is to be counted by the “count value of error filtering”. This term does not appear to be clearly defined in the claim or specification. The claim additionally recites “obtaining… a self-damage triggering result according to a comparing result” in lines 16-17. It is not clear how the triggering result would be determined or obtained from the comparing result from comparing the received signal with the output signal, or what the triggering result is intended to encompass. The claim also recites “adjusting… the dynamic signal parameter and the self-damage triggering condition according to the self-damage triggering result” in lines 20-21. It is not clear how the parameter and condition are to be adjusted based on the triggering result; i.e. it is not clear how the values of the triggering result would be applied to adjust the parameter and condition. The claim further recites “if yes, then triggering a self-damage wire, otherwise, not triggering the self-damage wire” in lines 25-26. It is not clear what actions would be taken to “trigger” a wire and whether the triggering or not triggering are intended to be separate steps of the claimed method. These ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving the signal… is” in lines 4-6. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. It is also not clear if this is intended to recite a further limitation or additional steps. Further, it is not clear whether “the signal” is intended to refer to the received signal or the output dynamic signal. The claim further recites “a pulse signal” in lines 7-8. It is not clear if this is intended to be a further limitation on the received signal or a distinct signal.
Claim 5 recites “outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving the signal… is” in lines 4-6. It is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. It is also not clear if this is intended to recite a further limitation or additional steps. Further, it is not clear whether “the signal” in lines 5 and 7-8 are intended to refer to the received signal or the output dynamic signal.
Claim 6 recites “clearing” in line 2. It is not clear whether this is intended to be an additional step of the claimed method.
Claim 7 recites “obtains” in lines 7, 9, and 11. This is not grammatically clear as to the subject of these verbs and if they are intended to be additional steps (e.g. of “obtaining”) of the claimed method. The claim further recites “by computing according to” in line 7. This is not in clear idiomatic English and unclear as to how this would be computed or calculated. The claim additionally recites obtaining “a self-damage wire output work frequency according to the output sampling frequency and the preset clock frequency division factor” in lines 9-10. It is not clear how the output work frequency is “obtained according to” the other elements. If this is intended to be a computation or calculation, this should be more clearly recited as such. The claim also recites “obtains the count value of error filtering according to the output sampling frequency and the output work frequency” in lines 11-12. Again, it is not clear how the count value is “obtained according to” the other elements. Further, it is not clear what is counted by the count value of error filtering, as the term has not been clearly defined in the claims or specification.
Claim 8 recites further steps of generating, comparing, determining, and triggering or not triggering. While the claim recites that the method comprises these steps, it is not clear if it is intended to recite that these are further additional steps that the method comprises or if these are intended to be further limitations on the steps of Claim 1. Claim 8 further recites “the signal” in line 5. It is not clear to which of the plural signals this is intended to refer. The claim additionally recites “comparing the output dynamic signal with the dynamic signal, and obtaining the comparing result” in lines 7-8. It is not clear why the dynamic signal would be compared with itself, and further, because different signals are compared relative to the comparison in Claim 1, then it is not clear how the same comparison result could be obtained by a different comparison.
Claim 9 recites further steps of generating, outputting, receiving, comparing, determining, and triggering or not triggering. While the claim recites that the method comprises these steps, it is not clear if it is intended to recite that these are further additional steps that the method comprises or if these are intended to be further limitations on the steps of Claim 1. Claim 9 further recites “the signal” in line 7. It is not clear to which of the plural signals this is intended to refer.
Claim 10 recites “generating… a dynamic signal, outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving a signal is” in lines 5-7. First, it is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. It is also not clear if this is intended to recite a further limitation or additional steps. Additionally, it is not clear if “a dynamic signal” is intended to refer to the same dynamic signal previously recited or a distinct dynamic signal.
Claim 11 recites “generating… a dynamic signal, outputting a dynamic signal… and receiving a signal is” in lines 5-7. First, it is not grammatically clear what the subject of the verb “is” is intended to be. It is also not clear if this is intended to recite a further limitation or additional steps. Additionally, it is not clear if “a dynamic signal” is intended to refer to the same dynamic signal previously recited or a distinct dynamic signal. The claim additionally recites “the signal” in lines 9-10. It is not clear to which of the plural signals this limitation is intended to refer.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2015/0301919, in view of Bhooshan et al, US Patent 9455233, and Wade et al, US Patent 9892293.
In reference to Claim 1, Huang discloses a method that includes receiving an instruction to set up a dynamic signal and setting a dynamic signal parameter, where a triggering condition includes a preset number of pulses (see paragraphs 0038-0040 and paragraphs 0044-0046); activating a dynamic detection function (paragraphs 0044-0046); generating a dynamic signal according to the parameter, outputting the generated signal via an output port, receiving a dynamic signal via an input port, and obtaining a triggering result according to a comparing result obtained by comparing the received signal with the output signal (see paragraphs 0043-0046); adjusting the dynamic signal parameter (paragraphs 0044-0046); and determining based on the result of the comparison whether a triggering condition was met and if so, triggering a self-damage wire (paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0046). However, Huang does not explicitly disclose that the dynamic signal parameter is of a mesh wire.
Bhooshan discloses a method that includes a dynamic wire mesh used to transmit a dynamic signal that is sent out along the wire mesh and the received signal is used to detect tampering (see column 5, lines 4-44, dynamic wire mesh with signals; see also column 4, lines 1-18). Therefore, 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 method of Huang to include the dynamic wire mesh of Bhooshan, in order to allow detection of tampering (see Bhooshan, column 4, lines 1-18).
Further, while at least Huang discloses adjusting the dynamic signal parameter, Huang and Bhooshan do not explicitly disclose adjusting the self-damage triggering condition according to a result. Wade discloses a method that includes sending dynamic signals over a wire mesh of a tamper circuit (see column 8, lines 20-41) and adjusting a self-damage triggering condition according to a result (see abstract, dynamically changing tamper response triggering conditions; see also column 55, lines 8-26, and column 6, line 56-column 7, line 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Huang and Bhooshan to include adjusting a triggering condition as taught by Wade, in order to reduce the number of false positives (see Wade, column 7, line 39-column 8, line 12).
In reference to Claims 4, 5, and 7, Huang, Bhooshan, and Wade further disclose activating a dynamic detection function, using a pulse signal and preset time length, a phase pattern, or random numbers (Huang, paragraphs 0044-0046; see also Bhooshan, column 5, lines 4-44).
In reference to Claim 6, Huang, Bhooshan, and Wade further disclose clearing sensitive information if the self-damage wire is triggered (Huang, paragraph 0041; see also Wade, column 36, lines 48-61).
In reference to Claims 8-11, Huang, Bhooshan, and Wade further disclose using various control chips and security chips to perform the various steps (see Huang, paragraphs 0044 and 0056, for example).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 D 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492