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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1420N-1 from Fig. 14A, S1610 and S1620 from Fig. 16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: determination unit first recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
determination unit: See Fig. 5; or Fig. 7B; or Fig. 7C; or Fig. 7D; and corresponding description. The determination unit comprises the structures within unit 120
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 14 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, the indefinite claim language is “wherein the random number generation apparatus is configured to generate a random number based on the first buffered voltage and the second buffered voltage.” This limitation is unclear because it recites the random number generation apparatus from the preamble as performing the function of generating a random number instead of one of the elements that comprises it, providing no indication of how the function is formed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the random number generation apparatus, so it is unclear whether the function requires another structure or is simply a result of operating the random number generation apparatus in a certain manner. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes the phrase “wherein the first random number generator is configured to generate a random number based on the first buffered voltage and the second buffered voltage”.
A suggestion for how applicant could resolve the unclear boundaries is amending the claim to specify how the first buffered voltage and second buffered voltage are used to generate a random number. For example, the amendment could specify the structure of the first random number generator that generates a random number based on the difference between two inputs. Each of these amendments when interpreted in view of the specification would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the indefinite claim language is “such that changing a state of the first capacitor from closed to open generates at the first capacitor a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise” This limitation is unclear because it recites the first capacitor as being able to change state from closed to open, however, a capacitor does not have an open or closed state. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes the phrase “such that changing a state of the first switch from closed to open generates at the first capacitor a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise.”
A suggestion for how applicant could resolve the unclear boundaries is amending the claim to specify how the first switch coupled with the first capacitor are used to generate a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise. For example, the amendment could specify the structure of the first switch that changes state from closed to open to generate a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise at the first capacitor. Each of these amendments when interpreted in view of the specification would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the indefinite claim language is “wherein the random number generation apparatus is configured to generate the random number based on the first differential signal and the second differential signal.” This limitation is unclear because it recites the random number generation apparatus from the preamble as performing the function of generating a random number instead of one of the elements that comprises it, providing no indication of how the function is formed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the random number generation apparatus, so it is unclear whether the function requires another structure or is simply a result of operating the random number generation apparatus in a certain manner. For purposes of examination, the examiner construes the phrase “wherein the first random number generator is configured to generate the random number based on the first differential signal and the second differential signal.”
A suggestion for how applicant could resolve the unclear boundaries is amending the claim to specify how the first differential signal and second differential signal are used to generate a random number. For example, the amendment could specify the structure of the first random number generator that generates a random number based on the difference between two inputs. Each of these amendments when interpreted in view of the specification would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the indefinite claim language is “A method for generating a random number, the method comprising a first noise generator circuit”. This limitation is unclear because a method claim is comprised of a series of steps not circuit structure. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “A method for generating a random number using a first noise generator circuit” instead.
A suggestion for how applicant could resolve the unclear boundaries is amending the claim to specify how the method uses a first noise generator circuit to generate a random number. For example, the amendment could specify the step of using the first random number generator that generates a random number based on the difference between two inputs. Each of these amendments when interpreted in view of the specification would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claims 9-10 inherit the same deficiencies as claim 1 and 8 based on dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 7,and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210184870 A1 Hurwitz, (hereinafter "Hurwitz") as disclosed in the IDS submitted on 03/19/2024. Apparatus claims 1-10 will be discussed before method claim 14.
Regarding claim 1, Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus comprising:
A first random number generator (Figs. 1, 5; [0084]; PUF apparatus 100);
A first noise generator circuit (Fig. 2A; Fig. 5, circuit 2000 corresponding to PUF cell 1051,1 as first noise generator circuit);
A first capacitor for use in generating kTC noise (Fig. 2A; [0059], “pair of capacitors 2100” where C1 is the first capacitor);
A first buffer coupled to the first capacitor to buffer a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise generated by the first capacitor and output a buffered voltage (Fig. 2A; Fig. 5, “buffer 22001,1” as first buffer, [0059], “V.sub.ktc is sampled KTC noise from the two capacitors” as capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise generated by the first capacitor);
A determination unit configured to: readout a first buffered voltage from an output of the first buffer (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0085] - [0086], “determination unit 170” as determination unit, V0(t0) corresponding to PUF cell 1051,1 as first buffered voltage, [0090], PUF output unit 5300 determining capacity or difference value for a PUF cell as output of the first buffer);
The first buffered voltage is a buffered version of a first capacitor voltage comprising first kTC noise generated by the first capacitor at a first time (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0059]; [0086], V1 corresponding to PUF cell 1051,1 as first capacitor voltage comprising first kTC noise generated by the first capacitor, Fig. 2B, t0- as first time);
Readout a second buffered voltage from the output of the first buffer (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; [0086], V0(t1) corresponding to PUF cell 1051,1 as second buffered voltage, Fig. 2A; Fig. 5; [0090], “PUF output unit 5300 determining capacitor difference value for a PUF cell” as output of the first buffer);
The second buffered voltage is a buffered version of a second capacitor voltage comprising second kTC noise generated by the first capacitor at a second time (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0059]; [0086], V2 corresponding to PUF cell 1051,1 as second capacitor voltage comprising second kTC noise generated by the first capacitor, Fig. 2B, t1- as second time);
Wherein the first random number generator is configured to generate a random number based on the first buffered voltage and the second buffered voltage (Fig. 2B; Fig. 5, “PUF output” as random number)
Regarding claim 2, Hurwitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with the first noise generator circuit further comprising:
a first switch coupled to the first capacitor so as to form a first switched capacitor arrangement (Fig. 2A, “switch bank 2300” where either of the switches coupled to C1 is the first switch);
such that changing a state of the first switch from closed to open generates at the first capacitor a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise ([0059] - [0060]);
Regarding claim 3, Hurwitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with a first buffer, wherein the first buffer is configured to apply a gain to the capacitor voltage to generate the buffered voltage ([0085], buffers 2200.sub.x,y with gain acting as amplifiers as configured to apply a gain to the capacitor voltage to generate the buffered voltage);
Regarding claim 4, Hurwitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with a determination unit, wherein the determination unit comprises a sampling circuit configured to sample the first buffered voltage (Fig. 5; [0085], “determination unit 170” as determination unit, “PUF output unit 5300” as sampling circuit configured to sample the first buffered voltage);
Regarding claim 7, Hurwitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 4 above. Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with a determination unit, wherein the determination unit comprises:
A comparator configured to compare the sampled first buffered voltage against the second buffered voltage (Fig. 2B; Fig. 4; Fig. 5; [0066], “comparator 4100” as comparator)
Wherein generation of the random number is based on an output of the comparator (Fig. 4; Fig. 5; [0090], “outputs of the comparators 4100.sub.x may be coupled to the PUF output unit 5300, such that the capacitor difference values may be determined in accordance with the process described with reference to FIG. 4”);
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz in view of Zumbahlen, Linear Circuit Design Handbook, Analog Devices, documentation found at https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/Basic-Linear-Design/Basic_Linear_Design.zip (hereinafter "Zumbahlen") .
Regarding claim 5, Hurwitz teaches the following:
the sampling circuit comprises an amplifier (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 4; Fig. 5; [0075]; [0088], “PUF output unit 5300” as sampling circuit, “differential amplifier 4100” as amplifier)
While Hurwitz discloses a sampling circuit with a differential voltage amplifier but does not teach a voltage amplifier comprising at least one capacitor wherein a sampling circuit samples a first buffered voltage using the at least one capacitor.
However, Zumbahlen teaches an inverting voltage amplifier comprising at least one capacitor wherein the sampling circuit samples a first buffered voltage using the at least one capacitor (Section 1; Figure 1.57; Page 1.56; capacitor C2). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hurwitz’s differential voltage amplifier to be the specific voltage amplifier comprising at least one capacitor taught by Zumbahlen. This modification would have been obvious because it would allow the amplifier to increase its gain (Section 1; Page 1.57-1.58).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz in view of Zumbahlen and further in view of Nolan, Demystifying Auto-Zero Amplifiers—Part 1, Analog Devices, documentation found at https://www.analog.com/media/en/analog-dialogue/volume-34/number-1/articles/demystifying-auto-zero-amplifiers-part-1.pdf (hereinafter “Nolan”).
Regarding claim 6, Hurwitz in view of Zumbahlen teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 5 above. Hurwitz also discloses a sampling circuit with a differential voltage amplifier but does not teach the amplifier as an auto-zeroed amplifier.
However, Nolan teaches an auto-zeroed amplifier (Pg. 1-3). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hurwitz’s differential voltage amplifier to be the specific auto-zeroed voltage amplifier comprising at least one circuit taught by Nolan. This modification would have been obvious because it would mitigate input offset voltage, low frequency noise, and the effects of drift (Page 1, right column, Auto-Zero Phase A, Output Phase B; Page 2, right column, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz in view of KR 20080086567 A, Hoon and Kyun (hereinafter “HK Differential”).
Regarding claim 8, Hurwitz teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with a first random number generator, wherein the first random number generator comprises:
a second noise generator circuit comprising (Fig. 2A; Fig. 5, circuit 2000 corresponding to PUF cell 105x,y as second noise generator circuit);
a second buffer coupled to the second capacitor to buffer a capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise generated by the second capacitor and output a buffered voltage (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0059], “buffer 2200x,y” as second buffer, “pair of capacitors 2100” where C2 is the second capacitor, “V.sub.ktc is sampled KTC noise from the two capacitors” as capacitor voltage comprising kTC noise generated by the first capacitor);
wherein the determination unit is further configured to readout a third buffered voltage from an output of the second buffer (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0085] - [0086], V0(t0) corresponding to PUF cell 105x,y as third buffered voltage, [0090], PUF output unit 5300 determining capacitor difference value for a PUF cell as output of the first buffer);
wherein the third buffered voltage is a buffered version of a third capacitor voltage comprising third kTC noise generated by the second capacitor at the first time (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0059]; [0086], V1 corresponding to PUF cell 105x,y as third capacitor voltage comprising third kTC noise generated by the first capacitor, Fig. 2B, t0- as first time));
readout a fourth buffered voltage from the output of the second buffer (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0086], V0(t1) corresponding to PUF cell 105x,y as fourth buffered voltage);
wherein the fourth buffered voltage is a buffered version of a fourth capacitor voltage comprising fourth kTC noise generated by the second capacitor at the second time (Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; Fig. 5; [0059]; [0086], V2 corresponding to PUF cell 105x,y as fourth capacitor voltage comprising fourth kTC noise generated by the second capacitor, Fig. 2B, t1- as second time);
While Hurwitz teaches a first, second, third, and fourth buffered voltage, it does not teach the first and third buffered voltages forming a first differential signal, a second and fourth buffered signal forming a second differential signal, or the first random number generator being configured to generate a random number based on the first and second differential signal.
However, HK Differential teaches a differential noise generating circuit that generates a random number based on two separate differential signals, wherein each differential signal derives from two separate noise-based voltages (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; Fig. 7; Fig. 8; TECH-SOLUTION Paragraph [2], “differential noise generating circuit 110” as first random number generator, “NSa” as first differential signal, “NSb” as second differential signal, “irregular random signal RS” as the random number). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hurwitz’s first and third buffered voltages forming a first differential signal and second and fourth buffered voltages forming second differential signal to be the NSa and NSb differential signals respectively, and first random number generator to be the specific differential noise generating circuit taught by HK Differential. This modification would have been obvious because it would eliminate similar deterministic characteristics found in a noise source in order to become more resistant to outside noise, reduce power consumption, and reduce implementation cost. (ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS section).
Regarding claim 9, Hurwitz and HK Differential teach the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 8 above. Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with a determination unit, the determination unit comprising a PUF output unit which controls auto-zeroing differential sampling circuit configured to sample the first differential signal (Fig. 6A; [0091]-[0092]; [0096]-[0101]);
Regarding claim 10, Hurwitz and HK Differential teach the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 9 above. Hurwitz teaches a random number generation apparatus with a determination unit, the determination unit:
wherein the determination unit is configured to generate the random number based on determining a difference between the second differential signal and the sampled first differential signal (Fig. 6A; [0091]-[0092]; [0096]-[0101], circuit for determining a PUF value comprising auto-zero switches);
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7 AM - 4 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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/J.B.N/ Jason B. NguyenExaminer, Art Unit 2182
(571) 272-8967
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights