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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 06/22/26 is acknowledged. As such, non-elected claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Article entitled: “LEDPUF: Stability-Guaranteed Physical Unclonable
Functions through Locally Enhanced Defectivity”, by Wei-Che Wang, Yair Yona, Suhas Diggavi and Puneet Gupta Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 25-29 (2016).
Wang et al. discloses locally enhanced defectivity physical unclonable
Functions (LEDPUF) in which an immiscible block copolymer (BCP) forms a pattern in a specific nano-size phase-separated structure through a self-assembly structure (DAS), see pages 25-27 and figures 1-2. Said (LEDPUF) can subsequently be used in a secure module, thus meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 18. The block-copolymer form self-assembled structure is spin coated thus reading on applicant’s dependent claim 2. The self-assembled structure is formed by phase separation of the block copolymer thus meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 3. The nano-size pattern of the self-assembled structure is formed of organic matter thus meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 5. The physical unclonable function device is formed of an upper layer and an intermediate layer having different patents (VIAS), see pages 25-27 and figure 3, thus meeting the limitations of applicant’s dependent claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Article entitled: “LEDPUF: Stability-Guaranteed Physical Unclonable Functions through Locally Enhanced Defectivity”, by Wei-Che Wang, Yair Yona, Suhas Diggavi and Puneet Gupta Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 25-29 (2016).
Wang et al. has been described above and “differs” from applicant’s claimed invention in that there does not seem to be a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example/structure) that expressively sets forth applicant’s specifically claimed parameters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Wang et al.’s overall disclosure as strong motivation to actually make a LEDPUF device that has incorporates all of applicant’s specifically claimed features. The additional features of applicant’s dependent claim 7 in regards making a LEDPUF device wherein the number of defects is 20 per 1 micron squared area, easily falls well within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Furthermore, it would have been obvious from Wang et al.’s disclosure to easily derive an “open” state of the connection of vias representing defectivity characteristics is set to binary “1” and a “closed state of the connection of vias is set to binary “0”, see pages 25-26.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Article entitled: “LEDPUF: Stability-Guaranteed Physical Unclonable Functions through Locally Enhanced Defectivity”, by Wei-Che Wang, Yair Yona, Suhas Diggavi and Puneet Gupta Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 25-29 (2016) in view of KR 10-2017-0054672 A.
Wang et al. has been described above and does not directly teach the limitations of applicant’s dependent claims 4 and 10.
KR 10-2017-0054672 A discloses a method for forming self-assembled nanopatterns using flaw melting. More specifically, the present invention relates to a method for forming self-assembled nanopatterns using flaw melting, comprising the following steps: (a) producing a mixture by mixing a block copolymer and a flaw melting agent; (b) forming a thin film by applying the mixture on a substrate; and (c) conducting self- assembly by annealing the thin film. A value of N of the flaw is less than or equal to 10.5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use KR 10-2017-0054672 A’s disclosure that block copolymers used for the self-assembled structures may be formed into lamellar nanostructures (see paragraph [0027]), as strong motivative to make said lamellar nanostructures from the Wang et al.’s block-copolymers. Likewise, the features of applicant’s dependent claim 10, could be easily derived from KR 10-2017-0054672 A’s disclosure wherein an inorganic pattern formed on a block copolymer can be formed of a conductive material (see paragraph [0083]-[0103], and figures 2-4). As such, the use of such a conductive material in Wang et al.’s LEDPUF device is strongly motivated.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Article entitled: “LEDPUF: Stability-Guaranteed Physical Unclonable Functions through Locally Enhanced Defectivity”, by Wei-Che Wang, Yair Yona, Suhas Diggavi and Puneet Gupta Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 25-29 (2016) in view of KR 10-2016-0085598 A.
Wang et al. has been described above and does not directly teach the limitations of applicant’s dependent claim 16.
KR 10-2016-0085598 A discloses a flexible chaos nanonet device, and a PUF security device based on a flexible chaos nanonet. The flexible chaos nanonet device includes: a plurality of carbon nanotubes formed on a flexible substrate; and an electrode array formed on the carbon nanotubes and including a plurality of electrodes having a selected domain size.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use KR 10-2016-0085598 A disclosure as strong motivative to actually form a plurality of electrodes in a physical unclonable function security device and wherein electrical resistance exists for each electrode pair in the nano-pattern formed of a material (see paragraphs [0128]-[0149] and figure 9 of KR 10-2016-0085598 A.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Article entitled: “LEDPUF: Stability-Guaranteed Physical Unclonable Functions through Locally Enhanced Defectivity”, by Wei-Che Wang, Yair Yona, Suhas Diggavi and Puneet Gupta Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 25-29 (2016) in view of Endress et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2019/0213371 A1.
Wang et al. has been described above and does not directly teach the limitations of applicant’s dependent claim 17.
Endress et al. teaches reader device for reading a marking comprising a physical unclonable function. One of the disclosed means for performing said operation is the use of polarized light, see paragraph [0027].
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Endress et al.’s said disclosure to use polarized light as one of the reading means in Wang et al.’s LEDPUF device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights