DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.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
2.According to applicant’s arguments filed on 12/08/2025 , independent clams 1,7 and 14 have been amended hereby acknowledged.
3. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not discloses the newly amended features of independent claims which recites in part: “a signal generator configured to provide first and second word line signals to a cell multiple times”;….and “in one of the multiple times the second word line signal is delayed with respect to the first word line signal”.
4. Examiner would like to point out that, it isn’t clear what is meant by the underlined limitation. For example, independent claim 1 recites the limitation: “a signal generator configured to provide first and second word line signals to a cell multiple times”;….and “in one of the multiple times the second word line signal is delayed with respect to the first word line signal.”
Especially, it is not clear what is meant by the word “delayed”, as the time period of the delay is not defined. Appropriate clarification is needed (see, the 112(b) rejection below).
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 13 of US patent nos. 11,783,092; and claims 1-2,12, 21-23 and 26 of US patent nos.11,947,713. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application encompass the same subject matter as the patent , but with obvious wording variations such as determining a reliability of a physically unclonable function (PUF) cell of a device. One or more activation signals are provided to a PUF cell under a plurality of conditions. A PUF cell output provided by the PUF cell under each of the plurality of conditions is determined. A determination is made of a number of times the PUF cell output of the PUF cell is consistent. And a device classification value is determined based on the determined number of times for a plurality of PUF cells. Therefore, this is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7.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.
8. Claims 1-20 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.
9. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation: “a signal generator configured to provide first and second word line signals to a cell multiple times to identify strength of the cell based on the consistency of a number of times cell value changes, wherein the first and second word line signals are respectively provided to first and second gate terminals of the cell, and in one of the multiple times the second word line signal is delayed with respect to the first word line signal”.
It is not clear, what is meant by the underlined limitation: “a signal generator configured to provide first and second word line signals to a cell multiple times”;….and “in one of the multiple times the second word line signal is delayed with respect to the first word line signal.”
It is not clear what is meant by the word “delayed”, as the time period of the delay is not defined. Appropriate clarification is needed.
10. Similar problem is found in independent claims 7 and 14.
11. Claims 2-8, 8-13 and 15-20 are also rejected under 112 (b) because of their dependency on rejected claims 1 , 7 and 14.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
12.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 signal generator configured to...”; “a strength analyzer configured to ...”; “a signature generator” in claims 1-2,4 and 6. 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 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 § 103
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 1-5,7-10,12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mai (US Pub.No.2017/0180140) in view of Karpinskyy (US Pat.No.11,403,432).
15. Regarding claim 1 Mai teaches a device comprising: a signal generator configured to provide first and second control line signals to a cell multiple times to identify strength of the cell based on the consistency of a number of times cell value changes (Para:0005, Para:0025-0026 and Para:0028 teaches providing signals to a PUF cell array in different environmental variations (e.g., voltage and temperature), and determine the PUF cell output value. Checking the output OUT of the SA is consistent (either 1 or 0) for both the phases i.e., reading the PUF data during NEG phase and comparing the NEG phase PUF data to POS phase PUF data. The process of enrollment operation is repeated for other PUF cells in a PUF array. Fig.3, element.302, Para:0025-0026 Para:0028 teaches in the POS phase where (V+) and (V-) are provided in synchronization. Fig.3, element.304 shows the NEG phase where (V+) and (V-) are provided out of synchronization. Table 1 shows checking whether the OUT value of NEG phase matches or not with OUT value of POS phase. If the values do not match, then, the PUF cell is considered as unusable cell and is rejected); and in one of the multiple times the second word line signal is delayed with respect to the first word line signal (see, the 112(b) rejection above)
Mai teaches all the above claimed limitations but fails to teach wherein the first and second word line signals are respectively provided to first and second gate terminals of the cell .
Karpinskyy teaches the first and second word line signals are respectively provided to first and second gate terminals of the cell (Figs.2a-b, and Col.6, lines.54-67; Col.7, lines.1-9 teaches the first and second word line signals are respectively provided to first and second gate terminals of the cell);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Mai to include the first and second word line signals are respectively provided to first and second gate terminals of the cell as taught by Karpinskyy such a setup will give a predictable result of selecting stable PUF cell with reference to the validity table.
16. Regarding claim 2 Mai teaches the device further comprising a strength analyzer configured to identify the strength of the cell based on the first and second word line signals (Mai: Para:0028-0030 teaches generating the reliability bitmap of PUF array during the two-phase enrollment operation. The reliability bitmap is then used at run-time to select reliable bits (usable bits) from the PUF array. Table 1 shows, when the output value of NEG phase does not match with the output value of POS Phase, then the PUF cell is considered as unusable cell and is rejected).
17. Regarding claim 3 Mai teaches the device, further comprising a computer-readable medium configured to store a record identifying a number of times values of a cell are consistent when the signal generator provides the first and second word line signals with varied timing (Mai: Para:0005, Para:0025-0026 and Para:0028 teaches providing signals to a PUF cell array in different environmental variations (e.g., voltage and temperature) and time, and determine the PUF cell output value. Checking the output OUT of the SA is consistent (either 1 or 0) for both the phases i.e., reading the PUF data during NEG phase and comparing the NEG phase PUF data to POS phase PUF data. The process of enrollment operation is repeated for other PUF cells in a PUF array. Fig.3, element.302, Para:0025-0026 Para:0028 teaches in the POS phase where (V+) and (V-) are provided in synchronization. Fig.3, element.304 shows the NEG phase where (V+) and (V-) are provided out of synchronization. Table 1 shows checking whether the OUT value of NEG phase matches or not with OUT value of POS phase. If the values do not match, then, the PUF cell is considered as unusable cell and is rejected).
18. Regarding claim 4 Mai teaches the device, further comprising a strength analyzer configured to output a number of cells having consistent values more than a predetermined number of times (Mai: Para:0005, Para:0025-0026 and Para:0028).
19. Regarding claim 5 Mai teaches the device, further comprising a storage configured to store a plurality of records that indicate cells having consistent values at least a predetermined number of times, wherein the device is configured to operate in different modes using the records (Mai: Para:0005, Para:0025-0026 and Para:0028).
16. Regarding claim 7 Mai teaches the method comprising: providing to a cell first and second word line signals such that second word line signal is in series with the first word line signal; and identifying a strength of the cell based on the consistency of a number of times cell value changes when provided with the first and second word line signals (see the rejection for claim 1).
17. Regarding claim 8 Mai teaches the method, further comprising: generating a record identifying a number of times values of the cell are consistent; and storing the record in a computer-readable medium (see the rejection for claim 3).
18. Regarding claim 9 Mai teaches the method, further comprising outputting a number of cells having consistent values more than a predetermined number of times (see the rejection for claim 4).
19. Regarding claim 10 Mai teaches the method, further comprising: generating a plurality of records that indicate cells having consistent values at least a predetermined number of times; and operating a device in different modes using the records (see the rejection for claim 5).
21. Regarding claim 12 Mai teaches the method, further comprising utilizing the device signature by: transmitting the device signature external to the device; signing a communication from the device using the device signature; or encrypting a communication from the device using the device signature (see the rejection for claim 6).
22. Regarding claim 14 Mai teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions for commanding one or more data processors to execute steps comprising: providing to a cell first and second word line signals such that the second word line signal is in series with the first word line signal; and identifying a strength of the cell based on the consistency of a number of times cell value changes when provided with the first and second word line signals (see the rejection for claim 1).
23. Regarding claim 15 Mai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the steps further comprises: generating a record identifying a number of times values of the cell are consistent; and storing the record in a computer-readable medium (see the rejection for claim 3).
24. Regarding claim 16 Mai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the steps further comprises outputting a number of cells having consistent values more than a predetermined number of times (see the rejection for claim 4).
25. Regarding claim 17 Mai teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the steps further comprises: generating a plurality of records that indicate cells having consistent cell values at least a predetermined number of times; and operating a device in different modes using the records (see the rejection for claim 5).
26. Claims 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mai (US Pub.No.2017/0180140) in view of Karpinskyy (US Pat.No.11,403,432) as applied to claims 5,10, 17, 18 above and further in view of Lu (US Pub.No.2020/0044871)
27. Regarding claims 6, 19 Mai in view of Karpinskyy teaches all the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach the device and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising a signature generator configured to determine a device signature based on the records, wherein the signature generator is further configured to transmit the device signature external to the device, to sign a communication from the device using the device signature, or to encrypt a communication from the device using the device signature.
Lu teaches the device, further comprising a signature generator configured to determine a device signature based on the records, wherein the signature generator is further configured to transmit the device signature external to the device, to sign a communication from the device using the device signature, or to encrypt a communication from the device using the device signature (Para:0087-0090 teaches generating a PUF signature and encrypting the PUF signature. The encrypted PUF signature is transferred to the server) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Mai in view of Karpinskyy to include transmit the device signature external to the device, to sign a communication from the device using the device signature, or to encrypt a communication from the device using the device signature as taught by Lu such a setup will give a predictable result of ensuring the integrity of data in transmission.
28. Regarding claims 11, 18 Mai in view of Karpinskyy teaches all the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach the method and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising determining a device signature based on the records
Lu teaches the method, further comprising determining a device signature based on the records (Lu: Para:0087-0090).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Mai in view of Karpinskyy to include determining a device signature based on the records as taught by Lu such a setup will give a predictable result of ensuring the integrity of data in transmission.
29. Claim(s) 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mai (US Pub.No.2017/0180140) in view of Karpinskyy (US Pat.No.11,403,432) as applied to claim 11 and 18 above and further in view of Pfeiffer (US Pub.No.2014/0327468).
30. Regarding claims 13 and 20 Mai in view of Karpinskyy teaches all the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach the method, and the non- transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising appending one or more error correction bits prior to utilizing the device signature (para:0058-0061 teaches appending error code correction (ECC) bits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Mai in view of Karpinskyy to include appending one or more error correction bits as taught by Pfeiffer such a setup will give a predictable result of determining and filtering reliable and unreliable states that can be employed to authenticate a chip.
Conclusion
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 DEREENA T CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri : 7:30 AM-5 PM EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/DEREENA T CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431