DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 10, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the abbreviation “CRP” without defining what it means. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a signal source that produces a detectable physical or chemical signal;
a sensor system comprising:
a sensor pair comprising:
a first sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal;
a second sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal;
a differencing circuit that produces a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal, and
a programmable processor configured to access a calibration table and to apply calibration data to the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal to produce a calibrated signal that accurately reflects the detectable physical or chemical signal.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the step of “produces a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal (subtraction)” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “produces a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal (observing and recording a difference), and
to access a calibration table and to apply calibration data to the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal to produce a calibrated signal that accurately reflects the detectable physical or chemical signal (view a table and apply values accordingly)” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 11.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: a signal source that produces a detectable physical or chemical signal; a sensor system comprising: a sensor pair comprising: a first sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal; a second sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal; a differencing circuit; a programmable processor;
Claim 11: A method of sensing a detectable physical or chemical signal, comprising: with a first sensor, converting the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal; with a second sensor, converting the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal.
The additional element in the preamble of “A method of sensing a detectable physical or chemical signal” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. A signal source that produces a detectable physical or chemical signal; a sensor system comprising: a sensor pair comprising: a first sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal; a second sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal (using broadly recited sensors to measure a broadly recited subject) represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A differencing circuit and a programmable processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10 and 12-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cambou (US 20180006830 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cambou teaches a system comprising:
a signal source that produces a detectable physical or chemical signal (Cambou Fig. 9 914);
a sensor system comprising:
a sensor pair comprising:
a first sensor (Cambou Fig. 9 902) that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal (Cambou [0066] The sensors 902 and 903 each receive and process the same detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals from a signal source 914. See Fig. 9 902. Sensors inherently outputs an uncalibrated electrical signal);
a second sensor that converts the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal (Cambou [0066] The sensors 902 and 903 each receive and process the same detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals from a signal source 914. See Fig. 9 903. Sensors inherently outputs an uncalibrated electrical signal);
a differencing circuit that produces a difference output reflecting a difference between the analog electrical first sensor output signal and the analog electrical second sensor output signal (Cambou [0024] differences between the outputs of the calibrated sensor and of the uncalibrated sensor may be compared (e.g., using exclusive-OR logic circuitry) to generate data that can be used as the basis for a PUF. This type of two-sensor system is referred to herein as a “differential sensor system.” For differential sensor systems, a physical or chemical signal does need to be applied to the sensors during PUF-based verification.), and
a programmable processor configured to access a calibration table (Cambou Fig. 9 908) and to apply calibration data to the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal to produce a calibrated signal that accurately reflects the detectable physical or chemical signal (Cambou [0066] Because the sensor 902 is calibrated using the calibration table 908 and the sensor 903 is uncalibrated, the digital sensor signal that is output by the ADC 905 will generally be different from the digital sensor signal output by the ADC 904. Also see Fig. 9 908. The output of the first sensor is calibrated).
Cambou does not explicitly teach the differencing circuit producing a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal.
However, Cambou teaches determining a difference between two sensors measuring the same thing (Cambou [0024] Alternatively, systems can be designed having two sensors of the same type, one calibrated and the other uncalibrated, and differences between the outputs of the calibrated sensor and of the uncalibrated sensor may be compared (e.g., using exclusive-OR logic circuitry) to generate data that can be used as the basis for a PUF. This type of two-sensor system is referred to herein as a “differential sensor system.”. Also see [0066] The sensors 902 and 903 each receive and process the same detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals from a signal source 914.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Cambou to explicitly teach the differencing circuit producing a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal, because the differential system of Cambou would be able to determine the difference between outputs of both sensors regardless of calibration state (see MPEP 2143 I. (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Regarding Claim 2, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches one or more analog-to- digital converters configured to produce a digital output of the calibrated signal and a digital output of the differencing circuit (Cambou [0064] Sensor system 900 includes a calibrated sensor 902, an uncalibrated sensor 903, an ADC 904, an ADC 905, a digital processor 906, a calibration table 908 for the calibrated sensor 902, a SRAM cache 910, and a PUF generator 916. If desired, the ADC 904 and the ADC 905 may be combined into a single ADC unit. Also see [0066] the digital sensor signal that is output by the ADC 905 will generally be different from the digital sensor signal output by the ADC 904. The signal processing is performed on digital signals from the sensors.).
Regarding Claim 3, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein the programmable processor is configured to access a CRP database stored in a memory, the CRP database including a record of previously measured difference outputs generated by the differencing circuit (Cambou [0033] FIG. 4 shows an illustrative sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs. […] The sensor system 400 is connected to a secure terminal 418 which is connected to a secure memory 420. While secure terminal 418 is shown here as being separate from secure memory 420, it should be noted that secure memory 420 may be implemented as part of secure terminal 418 if desired.),
the memory further configured to compare previously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit with contemporaneously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit, and on the basis of the comparison, determine a match (Cambou [0051] At 650, the secure terminal determines whether the PUF responses match the corresponding PUF challenges at a predetermined rate based on, for example, the output of XOR logic gates in the comparator circuitry. This determination may be made by processing circuitry in the secure terminal that compares the number of PUF CRP matches over time to the predetermined matching rate. The predetermined matching rate may be defined during setup of the initial cryptographic protocol of the system.).
Regarding Claim 4, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein the CRP database associates the record of previously measured difference outputs generated by the differencing circuit (Cambou [0054] The comparator 706 then determines whether each CRP matches and produces a corresponding output signal at output 708. It should be noted that the CRPs may be compared using any desired practical means and that the use of the comparator 706 shown here is merely illustrative.) with detectable physical or chemical signal generated by the signal source (Cambou [0066] The sensors 902 and 903 each receive and process the same detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals from a signal source 914.).
Regarding Claim 6, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein comparing previously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit with contemporaneously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit comprises comparing digital signals reflecting the previously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit and the contemporaneously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit (Cambou [0071] The PUF response R may then be compared with the challenge C stored in the secure terminal. C is generated during the initial set up in the same way R is generated and is stored in a secure memory 920. Also see Fig. 9 1040 – 1060. The PUF response differences between the sensors is compared to the stored challenge values).
Regarding Claim 7, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein comparing digital signals reflecting the previously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit and the contemporaneously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit comprises computing a Hamming distance between digital signals reflecting the previously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit and the contemporaneously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit (Cambou [0071] The match is positive when the hamming distance between R and C is small. The hamming distance, or CRP errors, between C and R is the number of bits at “1” present in the resulting stream R⊕C.).
Regarding Claim 8, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein determining a match comprises determining a match if the Hamming distance between digital signals reflecting the previously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit and the contemporaneously measured difference outputs of the differencing circuit is below a predetermined threshold (Cambou [0071] The match is positive when the hamming distance between R and C is small. The hamming distance, or CRP errors, between C and R is the number of bits at “1” present in the resulting stream R⊕C. Also see [0082] the hamming distance between them stays constant when the detectable signals are drifting. In such instances, the two sensors are producing drifting electrical signals, however the hamming distance (e.g., offset) between the signals stays constant. The Hamming distance is acceptable when constant).
Regarding Claim 11, Cambou teaches a method of sensing a detectable physical or chemical signal, comprising:
with a first sensor, converting the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal (Cambou Fig. 9 902. Sensors inherently output an uncalibrated electrical signal);
with a second sensor, converting the detectable signal into an uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal (Cambou Fig. 9 903. Sensors inherently outputs an uncalibrated electrical signal);
applying calibration data to the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal to produce a calibrated output signal that accurately reflects the detectable physical or chemical signal (Cambou [0066] Because the sensor 902 is calibrated using the calibration table 908 and the sensor 903 is uncalibrated, the digital sensor signal that is output by the ADC 905 will generally be different from the digital sensor signal output by the ADC 904. Also see Fig. 9 908. The output of the first sensor is calibrated), and
computing a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the calibrated analog electrical second sensor signal (Cambou [0024] differences between the outputs of the calibrated sensor and of the uncalibrated sensor may be compared (e.g., using exclusive-OR logic circuitry) to generate data that can be used as the basis for a PUF. This type of two-sensor system is referred to herein as a “differential sensor system.” For differential sensor systems, a physical or chemical signal does need to be applied to the sensors during PUF-based verification.).
Cambou does not explicitly teach the differencing circuit producing a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal.
However, Cambou teaches determining a difference between two sensors measuring the same thing (Cambou [0024] Alternatively, systems can be designed having two sensors of the same type, one calibrated and the other uncalibrated, and differences between the outputs of the calibrated sensor and of the uncalibrated sensor may be compared (e.g., using exclusive-OR logic circuitry) to generate data that can be used as the basis for a PUF. This type of two-sensor system is referred to herein as a “differential sensor system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Cambou to explicitly teach the differencing circuit producing a difference output reflecting a difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor output signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor output signal, because the differential system of Cambou would be able to determine the difference between outputs of both sensors regardless of calibration state (see MPEP 2143 I. (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Regarding Claim 12, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches digitizing the calibrated output signal and the difference between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal(Cambou [0064] Sensor system 900 includes a calibrated sensor 902, an uncalibrated sensor 903, an ADC 904, an ADC 905, a digital processor 906, a calibration table 908 for the calibrated sensor 902, a SRAM cache 910, and a PUF generator 916. If desired, the ADC 904 and the ADC 905 may be combined into a single ADC unit. Also see [0066] the digital sensor signal that is output by the ADC 905 will generally be different from the digital sensor signal output by the ADC 904. The signal processing is performed on digital signals from the sensors.).
Regarding Claim 13, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches comparing previously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal with contemporaneously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal for the same detectable signals, and on the basis of the comparison, determining a match (Cambou [0071] The PUF response R may then be compared with the challenge C stored in the secure terminal. C is generated during the initial set up in the same way R is generated and is stored in a secure memory 920. Also see Fig. 9 1040 – 1060. The PUF response differences between the sensors is compared to the stored challenge values).
Regarding Claim 14, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein comparing previously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal with contemporaneously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal for the same detectable signals comprises accessing a CRP database stored in a memory, the CRP database including a record of previously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal (Cambou [0033] FIG. 4 shows an illustrative sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs. […] The sensor system 400 is connected to a secure terminal 418 which is connected to a secure memory 420. While secure terminal 418 is shown here as being separate from secure memory 420, it should be noted that secure memory 420 may be implemented as part of secure terminal 418 if desired. [0051] At 650, the secure terminal determines whether the PUF responses match the corresponding PUF challenges at a predetermined rate based on, for example, the output of XOR logic gates in the comparator circuitry. This determination may be made by processing circuitry in the secure terminal that compares the number of PUF CRP matches over time to the predetermined matching rate. The predetermined matching rate may be defined during setup of the initial cryptographic protocol of the system.).
Regarding Claim 15, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein determining a match comprises computing a Hamming distance between digital signals reflecting the previously measured previously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal with a digital signal reflecting contemporaneously measured differences between the uncalibrated analog electrical first sensor signal and the uncalibrated analog electrical second sensor signal for the same detectable signals (Cambou [0071] The match is positive when the hamming distance between R and C is small. The hamming distance, or CRP errors, between C and R is the number of bits at “1” present in the resulting stream R⊕C.).
Regarding Claim 16, Cambou (as stated above) further teaches wherein determining a match comprises determining a match if the Hamming distance is below a predetermined threshold (Cambou [0071] The match is positive when the hamming distance between R and C is small. The hamming distance, or CRP errors, between C and R is the number of bits at “1” present in the resulting stream R⊕C. Also see [0082] the hamming distance between them stays constant when the detectable signals are drifting. In such instances, the two sensors are producing drifting electrical signals, however the hamming distance (e.g., offset) between the signals stays constant. The Hamming distance is acceptable when constant).
Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for Claims 5, 9, 10, 17, and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cambou (US 20190312740 A1) discloses Multi-PUF Authentication From Sensors And Their Calibration.
Ji et al. (US 20220085817 A1) discloses Physical Unclonable Function (PUF)-Based Method For Enhancing System Reliability.
Devadas (US 20100127822 A1) discloses a Non-Networked RFID-PUF Authentication.
Voutilainen (US 20170230188 A1) discloses a Physical Unclonable Function.
Rostami et al. (US 20150195088 A1) discloses PUF Authentication And Key-Exchange By Substring Matching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, LISA CAPUTO can be reached at (571) 272-2388. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2863 09/22/2025