DETAILED ACTION
A response was received on 02 April 2026. By this response, Claims 1 and 4-11 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1 and 4-11 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Amendment
The substitute specification does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3)(ii) and 1.125(c) that the substitute specification must include markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. For example, in at least paragraphs 0005, 0089, and 0097, it appears that text has been deleted without being marked with strikethrough or double brackets as required. In at least paragraph 0017, text that was previously present in the paragraph is marked as added with underlining. In at least paragraphs 0089 and 0093, certain text is shown with both underlining and strikethrough, making it unclear whether the text is intended to be included in the paragraph. In at least paragraph 0089 and 0099, text which was not previously present in the paragraph is marked with strikethrough for deletion. In at least paragraphs 0097 and 0100, text has been added without being marked with underlining as required. The above is not an exhaustive list of paragraphs that do not fully comply with the above requirements. The substitute specification also does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3)(ii) and 1.125(c) that the text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived, noting that double brackets may also be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. In particular, throughout the substitute specification, it appears that certain text (e.g. certain punctuation marks and single characters such as the letter “a”, as well as certain white space) may be intended to be marked with strikethrough for deletion; however, in the font used, it is difficult to discern whether such text is, in fact, marked with strikethrough. See also MPEP § 714 II.B. The substitute specification has not been entered. Applicant is required to resubmit the substitute specification in a manner fully compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125.
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 4 includes text which was not previously present in the claim but which has been marked with double brackets for deletion, and at least Claim 4 also includes text which was previously present in the claim but which is marked as added with underlining. As a courtesy and for purposes of advancing prosecution, 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 again reminded that all subsequent amendments must fully comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, and with particular reference to the amendments to independent Claim 1, Applicant asserts that certain features have been separated into two steps in an attempt to clarify the claims (see pages 7-8 and 9 of the present response). However, the amendment to the “obtaining” limitation still does not appear to clarify how the self-damage triggering result is obtained “according to” the comparing result, and the amendment to the “adjusting” limitation still does not appear to clarify how the parameter and condition are to be adjusted based on the triggering result or how the values of the triggering result would be applied to adjust the parameter and condition.
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 Wade et al, US Patent 9892293, Applicant argues that Wade, individually, attempts to reduce false tamper responses, allegedly does not use an iterative closed-loop process, and allegedly does not actively erase data (pages 9-10 of the present response, no particular evidence cited). First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., actively confirming a malicious attack, an iterative process, or erasing data “immediately”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Each of Huang, Bhooashan, and Wade discloses deletion of sensitive data when tampering is detected (see Huang, paragraph 0041, as previously cited, erasing or destroying data; see also Wade, column 36, lines 48-61, as previously cited, tampering countermeasure triggered such as erasing sensitive data; see further Bhooshan, column 2, lines 41-65, tamper detection signal sets off a sequence to erase contents of protected circuits). To the extent that Applicant argues that none of Huang, Bhooshan, or Wade discloses a self-damage wire that connect the input and output port and that is triggered, where sensitive information is destroyed when the terminal is dismantled or attacked, the claims do not clearly distinguish the (mesh) wire connected between the input and output ports and the self-damage wire. All of the relied upon references disclose a connection between input and output ports (e.g. Huang, paragraph 0046; Bhooshan, column 5, lines 4-44; and Wade, column 8, lines 20-41, all as previously cited) and that sensitive information is destroyed when the tamper circuit is triggered/an attack is detected (see the portions cited above for deletion of data).
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
If the substitute specification were entered, the drawings would be objected to for the following reasons.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: M1, M2, M3, M4, N1, N2, N3, N4, 201, 202, 203, 204, C1, C2, and C3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
As noted above, the substitute specification has not been entered. Applicant is required to resubmit the substitute specification in a manner compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(b) and 1.125. Because the substitute specification has not been entered, the objection to the disclosure is NOT withdrawn. For brevity, the objection is not repeated herein; please see the substance of the objection at paragraph 6 (pages 4-5) of the Office action mailed 06 January 2026, which is incorporated herein. 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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, lines 1, 6, 8, 10, and 13, it appears that “the security system” may be intended to refer to the “security processing system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1 and 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite 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 mesh wire” having a dynamic signal in line 7. However, because the dynamic signal is applied to the self-damage wire output port (lines 12-13) to which a self-damage wire is connected (line 4), it is not clear whether the mesh wire is the same as the self-damage wire or if they are distinct, nor is it clear where the mesh wire is connected if the wires are distinct. For purposes of interpreting the claim, the mesh wire has been assumed to be the self-damage wire. The claim further recites “obtaining… a self-damage triggering result according to the comparing result” in lines 19-20. 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. It is noted that the claim recites a separate step of determining whether the comparing result meets the self-damage triggering condition and triggering or not triggering the self-damage wire based on whether the condition is met (lines 23-25), but this step is recited as distinct from obtaining the triggering result, and therefore, it is still not clear how the triggering result is obtained. The claim additionally recites “adjusting… the dynamic signal parameter and the self-damage triggering condition according to the self-damage triggering result” in lines 26-27. 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 also recites “any sensitive information is destroyed right away when the terminal is illegally dismantled or attacked” in lines 31-32. The term “sensitive” is a relative term that is not clearly described in the claims or specification; further, the specification does not provide a clear standard of comparison for determining whether information may be sensitive or not. Additionally, the term “right away” is an informal and ambiguous subjective period of time. It is not clear how soon the information must be destroyed to be considered to be “right away”. See also MPEP § 2173.05(b). The above ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving the signal… is as follows” 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. If this is intended as a further limitation on the steps of the independent claim, it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause such as “wherein outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving the signal… comprise”. 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 as follows” in lines 3-5. 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. If this is intended as a further limitation on the steps of the independent claim, it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause such as “wherein outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving the signal… comprise”. 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 “by computing according to” in line 9. 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 10-11. 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 obtaining “the count value of error filtering according to the output sampling frequency and the output work frequency” in lines 13-14. 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 6. 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… the dynamic signal, outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving a signal is as follows” 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. If this is intended as a further limitation on the steps of the independent claim, it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause such as “wherein generating… outputting… and receiving… comprise”. The claim further recites “the signal” in lines 6 and 9. It is not clear to which of the plural signals this limitation is intended to refer.
Claim 11 recites “generating… the dynamic signal, outputting the dynamic signal… and receiving a signal is as follows” 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. If this is intended as a further limitation on the steps of the independent claim, it appears that this may be intended as a “wherein” clause such as “wherein generating… outputting… and receiving… comprise”. The claim further 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.
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 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) where sensitive information is destroyed when the terminal is dismantled or attacked to guarantee personal information is not leaked (paragraph 0041). 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, corresponding to the claimed mesh wire and self-damage wire; see also column 4, lines 1-18) where sensitive information is destroyed when the terminal is dismantled or attacked to guarantee personal information is not leaked (column 2, lines 41-65). 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 (corresponding to the claimed mesh wire and self-damage wire, 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) where sensitive information is destroyed when the terminal is dismantled or attacked to guarantee personal information is not leaked (column 36, lines 48-61). 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights