DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Amendment filed 13 February 2026 has been received and considered.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
This Action is Final.
Claim Interpretation
The interpretation of the claims invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn base on the filed amendment.
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, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipu et al. (US 20150067333) in view of Kurts et al. (US 20200348361).
As per claims 1, 11, and 20, Cipu et al. discloses a method, medium, and apparatus (see paragraphs [0013]-[0014]) comprising :
a debugging hardware to generate and transmit a host token to a device via an interface, wherein the interface is to provide encrypted communication between the debugging entity and the device (see paragraphs [0041] and [0045] where the public key corresponds to the claimed host token and the traffic emulator, i.e. the debugging hardware, includes a network interface for sending and receiving encrypted communications); and
the debugging hardware and the device to generate a session key based at least in part on the host token and a device token (see paragraph [0048] where the keys are generated using the public and corresponding private keys therefore are “based on” these values).
Cipu et al. fails to explicitly the debugging hardware is to transmit an acknowledgement signal to the device after generation of the session key to initiate a debug session, wherein the debugging entity is to transmit a debug unlock key to the device to cause the device to be unlocked for the debug session.
However Kurts et al. teaches the debugging hardware is to transmit an acknowledgement signal to the device after generation of the session key to initiate a debug session, wherein the debugging hardware is to transmit a debug unlock key to the device to cause the device to be unlocked for the debug session (see paragraphs [0044]-[0046] where the acknowledgment includes a constant pattern, i.e. debug unlock key, used to unlock a debug session).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the debugging encryption and unlock key in the Cipu et al. system.
Motivation, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so would have been to ensure the session key is properly synchronized before allowing the debugging session.
As per claims 2, 12, and 21, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system discloses the device comprises one of: a device under test, a system under test, an integrated circuit device, and a processor (see Cipu et al. paragraph [0039] showing a DUT and Kurts et al. paragraphs [0044]-[0046] showing a SUT).
As per claims 4, 14, and 23, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system discloses the device is to generate the device token in in response to receipt of a host token from the debugging hardware (see Cipu et al. paragraph [0045]).
As per claims 5, 15, and 24, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system discloses the device is to generate the session key based at least in part on the host token and the device token (see Cipu et al. paragraph [0048]).
As per claims 6, 16, and 25, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system discloses the interface is to provide encrypted communication between the debugging hardware and the device based at least in part on the session key (see Cipu et al. paragraph [0049] and Kurts et al. paragraph [0046]).
As per claims 7 and 17, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system discloses an authentication finite state machine to generate the session key based at least in part on one or more stored fuse values and a random number (see Kurts et al. paragraph [0062]).
As per claims 8, 9, 18, and 19, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system fails to explicitly disclose the fuse values are encrypted and decrypted prior to use. However, Official Notice is taken that at a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to encrypt and decrypt the fuse values of the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system in order to further protect the data when stored.
Claims 3, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system as applied to claims 1, 11, and 20 above, and further in view of Evans et al. (US 20200136346).
As per claims 3, 13, and 22, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system fails to disclose the device is to implement brute force and side channel protection through a special latency delay during session start in response to receipt of the host token at the device.
However Evans et al. teaches the use of a delay to protect against attacks (see paragraphs [0002]-[0006]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to include the delay of Evans et al. in the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system.
Motivation to do so would have been to protect the encryption keys against attacks (see Evans et al. paragraphs [0002]-[0006]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghetie et al. (US 20230129830).
As per claim 10, the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system fails to disclose the device comprises logic to detect a fault attack to cause generation of a weak random number.
However, Ghetie et al. teaches the use of logic to detect and protect a random number generator from fault attacks (see paragraph [0065]).
At a time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include fault attack detection and protection in the modified Cipu et al. and Kurts et al. system.
Motivation to do so would have been to ensure the random number generators maintain proper entropy (see Ghetie et al. paragraph [0065]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the acknowledgement of Kurts cannot correspond to both the claimed acknowledgement and the debug unlock key.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the acknowledgement of Kurts contains both an acknowledgement after a session key agreement and a pattern, i.e. a debug unlock key. The claims only require that each of these pieces of information (i.e. the acknowledgement and the debug unlock key) are transmitted. While the phrase “to transmit” (and similarly recited in each independent claim) is recited twice, there is no language, such as specific ordering of the messages or a specific requirement that the transmissions be different, that requires them to be separate transmission. 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). As such, the transmission of Kurts containing both an acknowledgement after a session key agreement and a pattern renders these limitations obvious as both pieces of information are transmitted. Furthermore, assuming arguendo, even if the claims require separate transmissions of this information, the limitations would be obvious over the prior art for at least two rationales. First, since there are only two different ways to transmit these pieces of data (i.e. together or separately) and both would have the predictable result of each piece of data reaching the device, where sending the acknowledgement first provides an added benefit of sending less data when the acknowledgement is a failed confirmation. Similarly and secondly, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes (as evidenced by the prior art put forth on the PTO-892 form) that it would be obvious to separate the messages to receive the acknowledgement first ensure subsequent messages will succeed.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the above response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to encrypted and/or debugging systems.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL J PYZOCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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 Pyzocha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409