DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 2nd paragraph rejections for claims 1-10, on pages 9-11, Applicant argues that the 112 2nd paragraph rejections should be withdrawn due to the fact that claim 1 recites “..wherein the first key generator is configured to use the first PUF to generate a shared secret key based on first configuration data of the first communication device” and “..wherein the first key generator is configured to use the second PUF to generate a shared secret key based on second configuration data of the second communication device”. The Applicant also pointed to paragraph [0049] of the specification, where the Applicant believes the application teaches how each of the key generators generates the shared secret key.
Regarding 102 rejections, the Applicant argues that Balan fails to disclose the now recited limitations of claim 11.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Regarding 112 2nd rejections:
Configuration/characterization as defined in at least paragraph [0049] of the specification as pointed out by the Applicant is unique per chip and that the configuration/characterization depends on physical random factors introduced during the manufacture of the software-defined radio chip.
According to at least point 1 above, it is unclear how two different devices/software-defined radio chips using its own physical unclonable function (PUF) would be able to derive the same result/key. One of the fundamental characteristics of PUF is that different chips produce distinct responses to the same input challenge, ensuring every device has a separate ID. As such, it is not possible for the first and second generators of the first and second generators to generate the same shared secret key based on its own configuration/ characterization.
Although paragraph [0049] discusses the generators 120 & 220 generate the predetermined secret key, using PUF from software-defined radio chips 10 & 20. Paragraph [0049] does not explain how it is possible for two different software-defined radio chips to generate a shared secret key using its own configuration/characterization data.
As such, based on the responses above, the 112 2nd rejections are maintained.
Regarding 102 rejections:
Balan discloses a shared secret key is generated using ring oscillator physical unclonable functions (RO PUF) secret key (section III). The RO PUF secret key is generated for each device in communications using the PUF and based on the physical uniqueness of a device/chip (i.e.: device A and device B) (section III). In other words, the RO secret key indicates the physical uniqueness of the device/chip, and thus is equated to the recited “configuration data”. Each RO PUF secret key is then stored. When a shared secret key is needed, a corresponding RO PUF secret key will be determined based on characterization of the software-defined radio chip (i.e.: device A or device B), to use and generate the shared secret key (section III). As such, contrasting to the Applicant’s arguments, Balan discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “..characterization the second software-defined radio chip..” in lines 15-16, which should be recited as “..characterization of the second software-defined radio chip..” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph: Use of “Means” (or “Step”) in Claim Drafting and Rebuttable Presumptions Raised.
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.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Invoked Despite Absence of “Means”
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 limitations are: “a first key generator configured to ..,” “a second key generator configured to..,” “the configuration data generator configured to..,” “..functional module that uses…“..FHSS module..” and “..encryption and decryption module,..” “..key generator configured to ..” in claims 1, 8, 11-13, 15, 17. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in at least figures 2 of the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 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 first communication device comprising a first software-defined radio chip comprising a first key generator comprising a first physical unclonable function (PUF), wherein the first key generator is configured to use the first PUF to generate a shared secret key based on first configuration data of the first communication device, wherein the first configuration data is determined by a key-management system based on a characterization of the software-defined radio chip such that the first key generator generates the shared secret key based on the first configuration data;” and
“a second communication device comprising a second software-defined radio chip comprising a second key generator comprising a second PUF, wherein the second key generator is configured to use the second PUF to generate the shared secret key based on second configuration data of the second communication device, wherein the second configuration data is determined by the key-management system based on a characterization the second software-defined radio chip such that the second key generator generates the shared secret key based on the second configuration data.”
First, the limitations “..characterization of the first software-defined radio chip…” and “..characterization of the second software-defined radio chip..” are interpreted as unique physical characteristics of each software-defined radio chip, which means that each of the first and second software-defined radio chip produces a distinct physical characteristics/key. As such, it is unclear how 2 separate communication devices using its own software-defined radio chip comprising its own physical unclonable function (PUF) are able to generate same secret key. The primary security benefit of a PUF is its uniqueness, meaning that no two integrated circuit (ICs) will provide an identical response to the same challenge. As such, it is requested that the Applicant further clarify and points out specific section in the specification that explains how the two separate communication devices are able to generate the same shared secret key using its own characterization and configuration data.
Claims 2-10 and 18-20 depend on claim 1, thus inherit the same 112 2nd paragraph rejection as claim 1 above.
In addition, claim 19 recites the limitation the key-management system configured to: “store first characterization data of the first software-defined radio chip..” and “store first characterization data of the second software-defined radio chip.” Paragraph [0054] of the specification describes that characterization data is defined as being obtained during a characterization process of the chip, typically during manufacture, as such, it is unclear how the key-management system is able to obtain and store the characterization data of the first and second software-defined radio chips.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by SDR Implementation of a D2D Security Cryptographic Mechanism (Hereinafter Balan).
Regarding claim 11, Balan discloses a software-defined radio chip for a communication device (at least figure 2, sections III-V), the software-defined radio chip comprising:
a key generator (at least section III, unique key generator) configured to generate a predetermined shared secret key using a physical unclonable function (PUF) based on configuration data (at least section III, using PUF to generate shared secret key/symmetric key based on i.e.: RO PUF secret key) and
a memory configured to store the configuration data (Static Random-Access Memory (SRAM)-i.e.: secret key is stored), wherein the configuration data is determined by a key-management system based on a characterization of the software-defined radio chip for the key generator to generate the predetermined shared secret key based on the configuration data (at least abstract, sections III & IV, the secret key is determined by a component for a shared key generator to generate a shared secret key).
Regarding claim 12, Balan discloses the software-defined radio chip of claim 11. Balan also discloses at least one functional module that uses the predetermined shared secret key as a protection parameter to protect a communication (at least section III, symmetric key/shared secret key is used for encryption/decryption).
Regarding claim 14, Balan discloses the software-defined radio chip of claim 11. Balan also discloses the software-defined radio chip is configured to:
communicate using modulation of a waveform as a carrier signal (at least sections I and III, communication is encrypted and transmitted via i.e.: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi Direct Near Field Communication (NFC)); and
use the predetermined shared secret key as a parameter to set the modulation (at least sections I and III, data is encrypted using the shared secret key/ symmetric key).
Regarding claim 15, Balan discloses the software-defined radio chip of claim 11. Balan also discloses an encryption module configured to encrypt and decrypt data using the predetermined shared secret key as an encryption key (at least sections III & V, the shared secret key/symmetric key is used, which means the shared secret key is used for both encryption and decryption)
Regarding claim 16, Balan discloses the software-defined radio chip of claim 11. Balan also discloses the physical unclonable function is implemented using a programmable hardware circuit (at least sections III & IV, PUF in IC).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 11 above.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan.
Regarding claim 13, Balan discloses the communication system according to claim 11. Balance also discloses the software-defined radio chip is configured to use the shared secret key to decrypt data received in encrypted form (at least section III, symmetric encryption is used, which means the shared secret key is used for both encryption and decryption), wherein the software-defined radio chip further comprises a frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) and use FHSS transmissions to communicate with each other, changes of a carrier frequency being controlled by said frequency hopping sequence (at least section II, figures 1-2, different spectrums are used for communication between Device A & Device B).
Balan does not explicitly disclose the frequency hopping sequence is encrypted with the shared secret key.
However, Balan discloses security schemes is used in different scenarios for device-to-device (D2D) communication (at least section II).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to encrypt the frequency hopping sequence to ensure only authorized entity can access connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHY ANH TRAN VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am-1 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at (571) 272-3787. 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.
/PHY ANH T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights