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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 5, 2023 and January 7, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-14, & 16 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 11, & 13 have been amended. Claims 10 & 15 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-14 of Applicant’s remarks, filed May 12, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of amended independent claim 1, under U.S.C. § 103, Agrawal (US 2003/0083831A1), in view of Kumhyr (US 2010/0230597A1), amended independent claims 2-3, under U.S.C. § 103, Nakayama (US 8203347B2), in view of Kumhyr, and amended independent claim 11, under U.S.C. § 103, Agrawal, in view of Nakayama, and further in view of Kumhyr, have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections have been made. Therefore, the rejections of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11, and dependent claims 4-9, 12-14, & 16, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11, are respectively maintained. Updated rejections based on amended features follow below.
In response to the Applicant's argument, please see pages 10-12 of Applicant’s remarks, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11, under U.S.C. § 103, that prior art references listed in the previous paragraph, as cited by the Applicant, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually, each and every limitation of these claims, to include the amended features of the invention, “the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information show by a model name or serial number of the original target equipment is linked… and when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment.”
A new ground of rejection is made over Goergen et al. (US 2021/0382967 A1, Fil. Date Jul. 30, 2020, hereinafter, Goergen). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Agrawal, in view of Kumhyr, in light of new prior art reference Goergen, for amended independent claim 1, Nakayama, in view of Kumhyr, in light of new prior art reference Goergen, for amended independent claims 2-3, and Kumhyr, in view Agrawal, in view of Nakayama, in light of new prior art reference Goergen, for amended independent claim 11, of fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest, individually or in combination, each and every limitation of these claims, to include the amended features of the invention, in particular, “the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information show by a model name or serial number of the original target equipment is linked… and when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment.”
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11, and dependent claims (original and amended), including dependent claims 4 & 9, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 5-8, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 2, and dependent claims 12-14 & 16, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 11, are respectively maintained. Independent claim 3 does not contain any dependent claims. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-12 of Applicant’s remarks, filed May 12, 2026, argues that Agrawal and Kumhyr possess different technical objectives (quantifying information leakage vs. determining device authenticity), and therefore a POSITA would not be motivated to combine them. Further, Applicant alleges this combination relies on impermissible hindsight and that no prima facie case of obviousness is present because the references do not teach all of the limitations of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is that Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 92007) rejected the rigid application of teaching-suggestion motivation test, noting that a POSITA is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR clearly established that prior art elements can be combined even if they were originally designed to solve different primary problems, provided the combination yields predictable results and there is a clear benefit to doing so. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the references is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Please see MPEP 2143(I)(A)-2143(I)(G), 2143.01, 2143.02, & 2144. Agrawal and Kumhyr operate in the exact same technical field: the evaluation and processing of electromagnetic (EM) emanations from electronic hardware, a domain for securing supply chains and verifying the integrity of mission-critical defense electronics and commercial equipment. Kumhyr relies on an accurate EM profile to perform its backend authenticity comparison. Agrawal provides a precise hardware extraction technique (e.g., utilizing a coupling circuit to isolate a specific message signal from conducted noise). The second part the Examiner would like to highlight is that upon further review, the Examiner applied different KSR rationales for obviousness, discussed in MPEP 2142, 2143(I)(A)-2143(I)(G), and 2143.02. The Examiner’s rejection satisfied the requirements for applying Rationales 2143(I)(A), 2143(I)(B), 2143(I)(C), 2143(I)(D), 2143(I)(E), and 2143(I)(G), in independent claims 1-3 & 11. Integrating Agrawal’s conductive emission extraction techniques as the sensor frontend for Kumhyr’s authenticity module would be obvious to a POSITA. The motivation for this modification is to improve the accuracy and signal-to-noise ratio of Kumhyr’s authenticity determination by ensuring the electromagnetic profile is cleanly extracted from interference. This represents a substitution of a known, signal extraction technique into a known authentication framework to yield the predictable result of a more robust anti-counterfeiting system. Similarly, prima facie case of obviousness for claims 2-3 & 11 are established in a similar way, and further updated below, in light of new prior art reference Goergen. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections make a prima facie case using a combination of the different rationales.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 12-14 of Applicant’s remarks, filed May 12, 2026, argues that Tsuneki (US 2020/0089175 A1) does not teach, disclose, and/or suggest “the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked,…and when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment,” as recited in amended independent claims 1-3 and similarly recited in claim 11. authenticity), and therefore a POSITA would not be motivated to combine them. Further, Applicant alleges this combination relies on impermissible hindsight and that no prima facie case of obviousness is present because the references do not teach all of the limitations of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11.
In light of the amendments in independent claims 1-3 & 11, a new ground of rejection is made over Goergen. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that the combined prior art references mentioned above, now in light of the new prior art reference, Goergen, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the amended language stated in the prior paragraph. Goergen teaches the missing limitations, disclosing an authentication system wherein a stored hardware authentication ID is combined and linked with secure identification information, comprising confidential serial numbers for specific electronic components ([0035]). Goergen further discloses an individual determination procedure, wherein, upon a successful match between the acquired characteristic representation and the stored ID, the processor verifies the authentication and outputs a message conveying the verified status and the linked component identification data to a display device ([0039]-[0040]).
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1-3 & 11, and dependent claims (original and amended), including dependent claims 4 & 9, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 5-8, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 2, and dependent claims 12-14 & 16, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 11, are respectively maintained. Independent claim 3 does not contain any dependent claims. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow below.
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.
Claims 5-6, 7-8, 11-14, & 16 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.
Claims 5 & 6 recite the limitation "is a signal showing the reflection characteristic…" in line 4, where “a signal…” was previously disclosed in claim 2. The repeated recitation of “a signal…,” introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claims. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “a signal…,” to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation of “a signal…” in claim 2.
Claims 7 & 8 recite the limitation "is a signal showing the impedance characteristic…" in line 4, where “a signal…” was previously disclosed in claim 2. The repeated recitation of “a signal…,” introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claims. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “a signal…,” to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation of “a signal…” in claim 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "acquiring a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic…" in line 4, and “detects a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic…” in ll. 5-6. The repeated recitation of “a signal…,” introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “a signal…,” to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation of “a signal…,” in claim 11. Claims 12-14 & 16, which does not cure the deficiency, are rejected due to dependence to claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "acquiring a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic…" in line 3, which was previously disclosed in claim 11. The repeated recitation of “a signal…an electromagnetic characteristic…,” introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claims. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “a signal…an electromagnetic characteristic…,” to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation in claim 11.
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.
Claims 1, 4 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumhyr et al. (US 2010/0230597 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 16, 2010, hereinafter Kumhyr), in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2003/0083831 A1, Pub. Date May 1, 2003, hereinafter Agrawal), and further in view of Goergen et al. (US 2021/0382967 A1, Fil. Date Jul. 30, 2020, hereinafter, Goergen).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kumhyr, teaches:
An individual determination device for target equipment ([Abstract], [0015]-[0017], & [0019]-[0022]: teaches an authenticity module for determining the authenticity of a target electronic device), comprising:
a storage device to store individual characteristic data showing an electromagnetic individual characteristic of original target equipment ([0020]: teaches a database that stores the expected electromagnetic profiles of original/authentic electronic devices); and
a comparison and determination device to compare the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0016], & [0020]-[0022]: discloses the comparison of a measured profile against a stored authentic profile, authenticity module 10 (a comparison and determination device), individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device (electromagnetic profile detected at an electronic device 12), individual characteristic data stored in the storage device (electronic profiles of authentic electronic devices stored in an electromagnetic profile database 24)), and to perform individual determination on the target equipment (Figs. 2 & 4; [0015]-[0016] & [0020]-[0022]: determines the identity of the specific device or component (e.g., distinguishing a processor from a FPGA)), wherein
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0016] & [0020]-[0022]: teaches using the comparison of electromagnetic characteristics to determine if the device is authentic (genuine) or counterfeit (non-genuine)), or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination (Figs. 2-4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]) or an authentication determination (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]), and
Kumhyr, is silent in regard to:
a coupling circuit that is electrically connected to an interface in target equipment, the coupling circuit being configured to detect a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic based on a conduction noise that is conducted to the interface in target equipment, to extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the target equipment, from the conduction noise detected thereby, and to output the electromagnetic characteristic signal;
a characteristic measurement device to receive the electromagnetic characteristic signal from the coupling circuit, and to output individual characteristic data showing the individual characteristic of the target equipment on a basis of the electromagnetic characteristic signal received from the coupling circuit;
However, Agarwal, further teaches:
a coupling circuit that is electrically connected to an interface in target equipment (Fig.2; [0013], [0034]-[0037] & [0039]-[0043]: sensor 2 (coupling circuit), current clamp (205) provides electrical connection to an interface in target equipment (100)), the coupling circuit being configured to detect a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic based on a conduction noise that is conducted to the interface in target equipment (Fig.2; [0013], [0034]-[0037] & [0039]-[0043]: sensor 2, current clamp (205) provides electrical connection to an interface in target equipment (100), conducted signal (202) interpreted as conduction noise, teaches using sensors like a “current clamp” to acquire “conductive emanations” from the DUT, mentioning the “ground conductor of the power line” as an interface), to extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the target equipment (Fig. 3; [0013], [0034]-[0037] & [0039]-[0043]), from the conduction noise detected thereby ([0013], [0034]-[0037] & [0039]-[0043]), and to output the electromagnetic characteristic signal [Fig. 3; [0013], [0032], [0034]-[0037] & [0039]-[0044]: Signal Acquisition, Processing and/or Analysis Module (300) extract a “message signal” or “signal component” which carries information about the DUT’s state and function (individual characteristics));
a characteristic measurement device to receive the electromagnetic characteristic signal from the coupling circuit (Figs. 4 & 6; [0013], [0041]-[0042], [0045]-[0046], [0055] & [0058]: teaches the “signal acquisition, processing and/or analysis module” (Fig. 1: 103, Fig. 3: 300) receives signals from the sensors, processed them to create a “statistical characterization” of the signal and noise, referred to as the “individual characteristic data”), and to output individual characteristic data showing the individual characteristic of the target equipment on a basis of the electromagnetic characteristic signal received from the coupling circuit (Figs. 4 & 6; [0013], [0041]-[0042], [0045]-[0047], [0055] & [0058]: teaches the “signal acquisition, processing and/or analysis module” (Fig. 1: 103, Fig. 3: 300) receives signals from the sensors, processed them to create a “statistical characterization” of the signal and noise, referred to as the “individual characteristic data”, A/S array (311) and P/A Array (315) generate “statistical characterization” S(D) and N(D));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumhyr’s electromagnetic measurement system to incorporate Agrawal’s coupling circuit and processing module as a known technique to improve similar devices. Kumhyr teaches an authenticity module for determining if the target equipment is genuine using electromagnetic profiles but lacks a coupling circuit electrically connected to an interface to detect and extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal based on conduction noise, as well as a characteristic measurement device to output individual characteristic data on the basis of that specific received signal ([0016] & [0020]-[0021]). Agrawal teaches a sensor array including a coupling circuit such as a current clamp electrically connected to a conductive channel to isolate and extract a message signal from conduction noise, and a signal acquisition/processing module serving as a characteristic measurement device that outputs an aggregate signal signature ([0034], [0041], [0044]-[0045]). The motivation for this modification would be to provide a reliable security assessment by isolating the electromagnetic profile from background radiative interference, thereby solving the problem of accurately identifying hardware characteristics in noisy environments. This combination represents a substitution of one known measurements sensor configuration for another to yield the predictable result of obtaining cleaner electromagnetic signatures for authenticity comparison (KSR).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
624
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
732
916
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
650
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
604
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
680
804
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kumhyr, and Agarwal, are silent in regard to:
the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked,
when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment.
However, Goergen, further teaches:
the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked ([Abstract], [0014]-[0016], [0026]-[0027], [0031], & [0035]-[0038]: teaches taking the stored hardware authentication ID and combining/liking it with the confidential serial numbers of the specific components of the board),
when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment ([0039]-[0042], [0066], & [0075]: teaches that when the stored authentication profile matches the acquired profile, verification is confirmed, and a processor/communication port can output messages regarding the status and the linked component information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Goergen’s known technique of linking and outputting serial numbers to the combined Agrawal-Kumhyr to improve similar devices. The combination of Agrawal and Kumhyr teaches storing and comparing electromagnetic profiles for authenticity. Goergen teaches a printed circuit board security system where a stored authentication ID is combined and linked with secure identification information associated with specific components, comprising confidential serial numbers ([0035]). Goergen further teaches that during the authentication process, if the acquired representation matches the stored authentication ID, the system validates the component, which inherently involves outputting the linked identification information such as the serial number via the processor or communication port to verify operations ([0039]-[0041]). The motivation for this modification is to improve administrative tracking and inventory management by ensuring that an authenticity match directly outputs the exact serial number, allowing users to quickly verify the specific origin/source of the genuine target equipment (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Kumhyr, teaches:
The individual identification device for target equipment according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0015]-[0017], & [0019]-[0022]), wherein
Kumhyr, is silent in regard to:
the interface in the target equipment at which a voltage or a current is observed, includes a power or communication or a terminal of a power or communication cable in the target equipment, or a whole or part of a case of the target equipment.
However, Agarwal, further teaches:
the interface in the target equipment at which a voltage or a current is observed (Figs. 1-2; [0033]-[0034] & [0041]: teaches that a sensor array that acquires signals, including “conductive emanations”, which are signals that leak via “electrically conducting channels that are attached to the DUT”, a sensor, such as a “current clamp” is used to acquire these signals by observing the current (by extension, the associated voltage/field) on that channel), includes a power or communication cable or a terminal of a power or communication cable in the target equipment ([0032]-[0034] & [0041]: provides example of an electrically conducting channel (power line) referring more specifically to the “ground conductor of the power line” or “ground line”), or a whole or part of a case of the target equipment (Figs. 11-12; [0034], [0041], [0078] & [0082]-[0084]: teaches that the interface used to capture the conductive emanations (where voltage/current is observed) includes the power cable/line of the target equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumhyr’s evaluation system by utilizing Agrawal’s power line as the specific interface to observe the voltage or current, representing a substitution of one known sensor interface for another to yield a predictable variation. Kumhyr teaches an authenticity module for determining the authenticity of target equipment but fails to detail that the interface in the target equipment at which a voltage or a current is observed includes a power or communication caller or a terminal or power or communication in the target equipment, or a whole or part of a case of the target equipment. Agrawal teaches that the interface where the signal is observed includes a power cable, detailing that the ground conductor of an AC main power line attached to the target equipment is used to monitor conductive emanations ([0034] & [0041]). The motivation for this modification is to improve testing efficiency and reduce equipment costs by exploiting the already-present power cables of the target equipment as the monitoring interface, eliminating the need to manufacture or attach separate external sensor arrays (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Kumhyr, teaches:
The individual identification device for target equipment according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0015]-[0017], & [0019]-[0022]), wherein
Kumhyr, is silent in regard to:
the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device, which is inputted to the comparison and determination device, is a result of, in a data arrangement device, arranging the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device by eliminating a noise or extracting specific information from the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device.
However, Agarwal, further teaches:
the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device (Fig. 7; [0042], [0054]-[0055] & [0057]-[0058]: generates “statistical characterizations” of signal S(D) and noise N(D) for a device operation mode (DOP), the characterizations (individual characteristic data)), which is inputted to the comparison and determination device (Fig. 7; [0042], [0054]-[0055] & [0057]-[0058]: generates “statistical characterizations” of signal S(D) and noise N(D) for a device operation mode (DOP), the characterizations (individual characteristic data) are the input to the “scoring device” (comparison and determination device)), is a result of, in a data arrangement device (Figs. 3 & 7; [0041]-[0045] & [0054]-[0058]:teaches using a filtering array and a “separator” (data arrangement device) and subsequent processing steps constitute the data arrangement), arranging the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device (Fig. 7; [0042], [0054]-[0058]: combines and averages the initial statistical characteristics (N(D)s and S(D)s) to form a new statistical characterization (NP1, SP1), involves extracting the “message signals” (specific information) from the raw aggregate signals and separating out the “noise component” (eliminating noise), and the creation of the statistical characterization (e.g., the aggregate signal signature) is the act of “arranging” the extracted information) by eliminating a noise ([0042] & [0054]-[0058]: averaging is a performed to reduce/eliminate noise) or extracting specific information from the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device (Fig. 7; [0042] & [0054]-[0058]: extracts the specific information related to predicate P1, “of all DOPs that satisfy P1”, and involves extracting the “message signals” (specific information) from the raw aggregate signals and separating out the “noise component” (eliminating noise), and the creation of the statistical characterization (e.g., the aggregate signal signature) is the act of “arranging” the extracted information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumhyr’s measurement system to incorporate Agrawal’s filtering array and separator as a known technique to improve similar devices. Kumhyr teaches an authenticity module for evaluating electromagnetic characteristics but lacks a data arrangement device that arranges individual characteristic data inputted to the comparison device by eliminating a noise or extracting specific information from the measured data. Agrawal teaches a data arrangement device comprising a filtering and pre-amplification array and a separator module configured to arrange the collected data by extracting specific message signals and eliminating noise components ([0042] & [0054]-[0055]). The motivation for this modification is to predictable improve the efficiency and accuracy of the authenticity determination by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio before the comparison module processes the data, thereby eliminating false negative or false positive hardware verifications (KSR).
Claims 2-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 8203347 B2, Pat. Date Jun. 19, 2012, hereinafter Nakayama), in view of Kumhyr, and further in view of Goergen.
Regarding independent claim 2, Nakayama, teaches:
An individual determination device for target equipment (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [Col. 2, ll. 16-61], [Col. 3, ll. 10-16], [Col. 10, ll. 6-16], [Col. 11, ll. 63-65] & [Col. 12, ll. 29-40 & 44-59]: discloses a reflection element determination device 50 used to determine the state of connected elements (target equipment)), comprising:
a coupling circuit that is electrically connected to an interface in target
equipment (Figs. 1 & 6a; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 12, ll. 60-61], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8, 25-51 & 60-67], & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: taught by first signal source 10, that is electrically connected to the calibration element (target equipment) via an output terminal 19 and switch 31), the coupling circuit being configured to detect a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic based on either a reflection characteristic or an impedance characteristic, observed in the interface in the target equipment (Figs. 1 & 6a, Figs. 1, 6a, 8, & 12; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 11, ll. 55-61], [Col. 12, ll. 22-23 & 60-61], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8, 25-51 & 60-67], [Col. 18, ll. 49-61], [Col.19, ll. 11-24] & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: taught by first signal source 10, that is electrically connected to the calibration element (target equipment) via an output terminal 19 and switch 31, where the system is designed to detect signals based on reflection, where the system measures signals reflected, signal source includes bridges and mixers (14a, 14b, 16a, 16b) that detect and separate outgoing signal from the incoming reflected signal (R12/R22), where R12 is described as “a result of a measurement of the signal reflected by the reflection element” or S-parameters), to extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the target equipment, from the signal detected thereby, and to output the electromagnetic characteristic signal (Figs. 4 & 5; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8, 25-51 & 60-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-5 & 10-21], [Col. 16, ll. 13-43], [Col. 17, ll. 49-67], [Col. 18, ll. 1-10] & [Col. 19, ll. 4-65]: error factor deriving unit 52, signal measurement 53, and transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 collectively perform the function of extracting the electromagnetic characteristic signal (S-parameters) from the raw detected signals and outputting it, further, the bridges (e.g., 14b) extract the reflected signal (e.g., R12) and output (output terminal 19) it to the mixers (mixer 16b) and to the determination device 50 via terminals);
a characteristic measurement device to receive the electromagnetic characteristic signal from the coupling circuit, and to output individual characteristic data showing the individual characteristic of the target equipment on a basis of the electromagnetic characteristic signal received from the coupling circuit (Fig. 4; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 12, ll. 52-62], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8] & [Col. 19, ll. 4-65]: discloses signal measurement unit 53 and the transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 is the “characteristic measurement device”, receive the signals, foundational data (Rij from the “coupling circuit” and E from the deriving unit), where its primary function is to output the “individual characteristic data,” which is the derived S parameters (Sija) of the target transmission element 44);
a storage device to store individual characteristic data showing an
electromagnetic individual characteristic of original target equipment (Fig.4; & [0188] [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 12, ll. 52-62], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8], [Col. 19, ll. 4-65], [Col. 20, ll. 1-5], & [Col. 24, ll. 11-26]: teaches the transmission characteristic recording unit 56 is the “storage device”, that stores the known, transmission characteristics true S parameters (Sijt) of the “original target equipment” or true values (transmission element 44 in its ideal, specified state)); and
a comparison and determination device to compare the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device (Figs. 1 & 4; [Col. 13, ll. 25-49] & [Col. 19, ll. 35-67 ], [Col. 20, ll. 1-26 ] & [Col. 22, ll. 1-14]: teaches the reflection element state determination unit 58 is the “comparison and determination device”, that directly compares the measured data (Sija from the transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 or “characteristic measurement device”) with the stored reference data (Sijt from the transmission characteristic recording unit 56 or “storage device”), based on this comparison (i.e., whether they coincide/match), performs an individual determination on the “target equipment” (reflection elements), determines the state of the element)., and to perform individual determination on the target equipment (Figs. 1 & 4; [[Col. 13, ll. 25-49] & [Col. 19, ll. 35-67 ], [Col. 20, ll. 1-26 ] & [Col. 22, ll. 1-14]: determines if the elements are realizing the “predetermined reflection states” (i.e., identifying the state/identity of the target equipment)), wherein
PNG
media_image7.png
596
866
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
684
582
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
732
874
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
874
566
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Nakayama, is silent in regard to:
the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked,
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine, or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination or an authentication determination.
when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment.
However, Kumhyr, further teaches:
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0016] & [0020]-[0022]: teaches using the comparison of electromagnetic characteristics to determine if the device is authentic (genuine) or counterfeit (non-genuine)), or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination (Figs. 2-4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]) or an authentication determination (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakayama’s determination device by incorporating Kumhyr’s authenticity determination as a predictable variation of comparing measured versus known baseline data to improve similar devices, and to ensure that the components under test or target equipment are not only functional but also genuine, preventing the security and business risks disclosed by Kumhyr. Nakayama teaches an element determination device that compares derived and known reflection characteristics to determine the state or fault of target equipment. However, Nakayama does not teach that the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine, or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination or an authentication determination. Kumhyr teaches an authenticity module that compares measured electromagnetic profiles against expected profiles of authentic devices to perform an authenticity determination of whether an electronic device under test is genuine or a counterfeit. Nakayama discloses the structural hardware limitations: the coupling circuit (bridges), the measurement device, storage of known characteristics, and the comparison/determination logic based on reflection characteristics (S-parameters), providing the device mechanism to detect the deviations in reflection/impedance characteristics, while Kumhyr discloses the method/functional limitation of performing authenticity determination (genuine vs. counterfeit) by comparing measured electromagnetic profiles against expected profiles, noting that counterfeit devices have different electromagnetic profiles. The motivation for this modification is to improve security and supply chain integrity by repurposing Nakayama’s accurate hardware measurement system to successfully detect and block the use of counterfeit components, thus the combination of prior art references would allow for an improved, more accurate authenticity determination, since it has been held that within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious (KSR).
However, Goergen, further teaches:
the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked ([Abstract], [0014]-[0016], [0026]-[0027], [0031], & [0035]-[0038]: teaches taking the stored hardware authentication ID and combining/liking it with the confidential serial numbers of the specific components of the board),
when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment ([0039]-[0042], [0066], & [0075]: teaches that when the stored authentication profile matches the acquired profile, verification is confirmed, and a processor/communication port can output messages regarding the status and the linked component information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Goergen’s known technique of linking and outputting serial numbers to the authenticity system of the Nakayama-Kumhyr combination as a substitution to predictable improve similar devices. The combination of Nakayama and Kumhyr teaches comparing electromagnetic characteristics to stored baselines for authenticity but fails to teach that the original characteristic data is linked to identification information shown by a model name or a serial number, and that the comparison device outputs this specific information including the model name or the serial number upon a match. Goergen teaches a security system wherein a stored hardware authentication ID is linked with secure identification information, comprising confidential serial numbers of specific components ([0035]). Goergen further teaches that when the acquired profile matches the stored authentication ID, the processor or communication port verifies authentication and outputs a message conveying this status and the linked component data ([0039]-[0041]). The motivation for this predictable variation is to enhance administrative tracking and inventory management by ensuring that an authenticity match directly outputs the exact serial number or model name, allowing users to quickly verify the specific origin/source of the genuine target equipment (KSR).
Regarding independent claim 3, Nakayama, teaches:
An individual determination device for target equipment (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [Col. 2, ll. 16-48], [Col. 3, ll. 10-51], [Col. 5, ll. 31-63], [Col. 10, ll. 6-16], ][Col. 11, ll. 63-67], [Col. 12, ll. 29-62] & [Col. 23, ll. 47-57]), comprising:
a coupling circuit that is electrically connected to an interface in target equipment (Figs. 1, 6a, 8 & 12; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 12, ll. 29-62], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8, 25-51, & 60-67], [Col. 18, ll. 49-54], [Co. 19, ll. 11-20] & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: taught by first signal source 10, that is electrically connected to the calibration element (target equipment) via an output terminal 19/29 and switch 31), the coupling circuit being configured to detect a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic (Figs. 1, 6a, 8, & 12; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 11, ll. 54-61], [Col. 12, ll. 22-23 & 29-62], [Col. 13, ll. 25-51], [Col. 18, ll. 49-54], [Co. 19, ll. 4-65], [Col. 21, ll. 1-3], [Col. 22, ll. 59-67] & [Col. 23, ll. 1-3 & 16-25]: taught by first signal source 10, that is electrically connected to the calibration element (target equipment) via an output terminal 19 and switch 31, figures illustrate the terminals 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d of the determination device 50 being electrically connected (bridges are the coupling circuits) to the mixers 16a, 16b, 26a, 26b, which are the interfaces of the signal sources 10,20 (system under test)) based on a pass characteristic observed between two different interfaces in the target equipment (Fig. 14; [Col. 10, ll. 6-67], [Col. 11, 1-32], [Col. 16, ll. 1-43], [Col. 22, ll. 36-45 & 59-67] & [Col. 23, ll. 1-3 & 16-25]: teaches the first signal source 10 transmits a signal through the transmission element 44 to the second signal source 20, which measures the transmitted signal, both connect to two interfaces of the DUT (via terminals 19 & 29), bridges (coupling circuits) 14a/b and 24a/b detect signals (R12, R21, R22) to derive transmission characteristics (pass characteristics S12d/S21d) between the interfaces), to extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the target equipment (Figs. 6a, 8, & 12; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8, 25-51 & 60-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-5 & 10-21], [Col. 16, ll. 1-43], [Col. 17, ll. 49-67], [Col. 18, ll. 1-10 & 49-54], [Co. 19, ll. 4-65], [Col. 21, ll. 1-3] & [Col. 23, ll. 16-25]): bridges extract the transmitted/reflected signals (Rij) which are output to the mixers and then to the determination device 50/60 to derive transmission characteristics Sija (individual characteristics)), from the signal detected thereby, and to output the electromagnetic characteristic signal (Figs. 6a, 8, & 12; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8, 25-51 & 60-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-5 & 10-21], [Col. 16, ll. 13-43], [Col. 17, ll. 49-67], [Col. 18, ll. 49-54], [Co. 19, ll. 4-65], [Col. 21, ll. 1-3], & [Col. 23, ll. 16-25]: taught by first signal source 10, that is electrically connected to the calibration element (target equipment) via an output terminal 19 and switch 31, figures illustrate the terminals 51a, 51b, 51c, 51d of the determination device 50 being electrically connected to the mixers 16a, 16b, 26a, 26b, which are the interfaces of the signal sources 10,20 (system under test), where the unit 52 extracts the error factors E, the electromagnetic characteristic signals, from the measured signals (R11, R12, etc.) and outputs them (e.g., to unit 54));
a characteristic measurement device to receive the electromagnetic characteristic signal from the coupling circuit, and to output individual characteristic data showing the individual characteristic of the target equipment on a basis of the electromagnetic characteristic signal received from the coupling circuit (Fig. 4; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 12, ll. 52-62], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8], [Col. 19, ll. 4-65], [Col. 20, ll. 6-13], [Col. 21, ll. 1-3], [Col. 22, ll. 36-45], & [Col. 25, ll. 49-63]: teaches the signal measurement unit 53, measurement device 60, and transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 is the “characteristic measurement device”, received the foundational data (Rij from the “coupling circuit” and E from the deriving unit), where its primary function is to derive/output the “individual characteristic data,” which is the derived S parameters (Sija) of the target transmission element 44 );
a storage device to store individual characteristic data showing an electromagnetic individual characteristic of original target equipment (Fig.4; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 12, ll. 52-62], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8], [Col. 19, ll. 4-65], [Col. 20, ll. 1-5], & [Col. 24, ll. 11-26]: teaches the transmission characteristic recording unit 56 is the “storage device”, that stores the known, transmission characteristics true S parameters (Sijt) of the “original target equipment” (transmission element 44 in its ideal, specified state)); and
a comparison and determination device to compare the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device (Figs. 1 & 4; [Col. 8, ll. 65-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-3], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8 & 25-51], [Col. 19, ll. 25-67], [Col. 20, ll. 1-26], [Col. 22, ll. 1-14], [Col. 24, ll. 51-67] & [Col. 25, ll. 1-23 & 49-63]: teaches the reflection element state determination unit 58 (or element state determination unit 59) is the “comparison and determination device”, that directly compares the measured data (Sija from the transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 or “characteristic measurement device”) with the stored reference data (Sijt from the transmission characteristic recording unit 56 or “storage device”), based on this comparison (i.e., whether they coincide/match), performs an individual determination on the “target equipment” (reflection elements), determines the state of the element), and to perform individual determination on the target equipment (Figs. 1 & 4; & [Col. 8, ll. 65-67], [Col. 9, ll. 1-3], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8 & 25-51], [Col. 19, ll. 25-67], [Col. 20, ll. 1-26], [Col. 22, ll. 1-14], [Col. 24, ll. 51-67], & [Col. 25, ll. 1-23 & 49-63]: determines if the transmission element/DUT is realizing the predetermined transmission state (i.e., identifying the target)), wherein
PNG
media_image11.png
468
782
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Nakayama, is silent in regard to:
the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked,
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine, or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination or an authentication determination.
when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment.
However, Kumhyr, further teaches:
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0016] & [0020]-[0022]: teaches using the comparison of electromagnetic characteristics to determine if the device is authentic (genuine) or counterfeit (non-genuine)), or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination (Figs. 2-4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]) or an authentication determination (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakayama’s determination system by incorporating Kumhyr’s authenticity determination as a predictable variation of comparing measured results versus known baseline data. ensure the transmission measurement capabilities that verify if a transmission element matches true value characteristics, the state determination (fault checking) of Nakayama utilizing the high-precision reflection/impedance measurement and comparison apparatus. To perform the authenticity determination, particularly for devices where signal propagation through the device (pass characteristic) is critical for verifying the identity, of Kumhyr, to ensure that the components under test or target equipment are not only functional but also genuine, preventing security and business risks. Nakayama teaches an element determination device that compares derived and known pass characteristics to determine the state of target equipment but fails to teach the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine, or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination or an authentication determination. Nakayama further discloses the structural hardware to connect to two interfaces of a target device (DUT) and measure pass characteristics (transmission characteristics S12d/S21d) between them and storing original/known characteristics and comparing them to measured values. Kumhyr teaches the method/functional limitation of performing authenticity determination (genuine vs. counterfeit) by comparing measured electromagnetic profiles against expected profiles, noting that counterfeit devices have different electromagnetic profiles, if a counterfeit chip (e.g., a processor mimicking an FPGA) is placed in the target equipment, its internal impedance and signal propagation delays (pass characteristics) would differ from the original authentic equipment, to execute an authenticity determination of whether an electronic device under test is a genuine device or a non-genuine counterfeit, and Nakayama’s device would detect the difference. The motivation to combine prior art references is to improve security and supply chain auditing, by leveraging Nakayama’s accurate hardware characteristic measurement framework to successfully detect and reject counterfeit components. Further allowing for an improved, more accurate authenticity determination, since it has been held that within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious (KSR).
However, Goergen, further teaches:
the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked ([Abstract], [0014]-[0016], [0026]-[0027], [0031], & [0035]-[0038]: teaches taking the stored hardware authentication ID and combining/liking it with the confidential serial numbers of the specific components of the board),
when the comparison between the individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device and the individual characteristic data in the original individual characteristic data stored in the storage device shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment ([0039]-[0042], [0066], & [0075]: teaches that when the stored authentication profile matches the acquired profile, verification is confirmed, and a processor/communication port can output messages regarding the status and the linked component information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Goergen’s known technique of linking and outputting specific serial numbers to the authenticity system of the Nakayama-Kumhyr combination as a substitution to predictable improve similar devices. The combination of Nakayama and Kumhyr teaches comparing derived electromagnetic characteristics to stored baselines for authenticity but fails to teach that the individual characteristic data stored in the storage device is stored as original individual characteristic data to which identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment is linked, and that when the comparison shows a match, the comparison and determination device outputs the identification information including the model name or the serial number. Goergen teaches a hardware security system wherein a stored hardware authentication ID is linked with secure identification information, specifically comprising confidential serial numbers associated with specific components ([0035]). Goergen further teaches that when the acquired profile matches the stored authentication ID, the processor or communication port verifies authentication and outputs a message conveying this verified status and the linked component data ([0039]-[0041]). The motivation for this modification is to enhance administrative tracking and inventory management by displaying the exact serial number or model name of the verified genuine equipment upon a successful authenticity match, allowing users to quickly verify the specific origin/source of the genuine target equipment (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Nakayama, teaches:
The Examiner is combining Nakayama and Kumhyr by implementing Kumhyr’s disclosure that teaches that the electromagnetic profile data representing the individual characteristic of the devices includes the amplitude (amount) of the signal plotted against frequency ([0020]-[0021]).
The individual identification device for target equipment according to claim 2 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 2, ll. 16-48], [Col. 3, ll. 10-16], [Col. 11, ll. 63-67, & [Col. 12, ll. 29-59]), wherein in a case where the signal showing the electromagnetic characteristic, detected by the coupling circuit ([Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 12, ll. 52-61], [Col. 13, ll. 25-51] & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: measures reflection characteristics (S-parameters or “electromagnetic characteristics”), states the signals R11 (non-reflected wave) and R12 (reflected wave) are detected by the mixers 16a/16b, 26a/26b, and bridges 14a/14b/24a/24b, which are part of the signal source system that functions as the “coupling circuit” to detect signals showing reflection characteristics (e.g., R12, R22)) is a signal showing the reflection characteristic ([Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 10, ll. 6-42], [Col. 12, ll. 52-61], [Col. 13, ll. 25-51] & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: states the signals R11 (non-reflected wave) and R12 (reflected wave) are detected by the mixers 16a/16b, which are part of the signal source system that functions as the “coupling circuit”, the relationship between R12 and R11 (or R22 and R21 for the second source) is the signal showing the reflection characteristic), the individual characteristic data includes reflection amount versus frequency (Fig. 18; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 10, ll. 6-27], [Col. 13, ll. 34-51], [Col. 14, ll. 48-54], [Col. 16, ll. 1-12] & [Col. 19, ll. 4-65]: where the entire calibration and verification process of the reference is performed as a function of frequency, states the purpose is to acquire S parameters and frequency characteristics, where the S parameters describe reflection and transmission amounts as a function of frequency, and the system corrects for errors in “frequency tracking.” The measurements (R11, R12, etc.) are taken across a range of frequencies, and the derived error factor and S parameters are frequency-dependent quantities, the states are the reference data, system operates by measuring the actual reflection amount (e.g., R12/R11) versus frequency and, after processing, comparing to known-frequency dependent models of reflection (the “individual characteristic data”) to determine if the element is function correctly, and Fig. 18 predetermined reflection states S16, is based on a frequency-point-by-frequency-point comparison of the measured reflection response against the stored ideal response).
PNG
media_image12.png
768
408
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nakayama’s evaluation system by formatting the reflection and frequency characteristic data as an amount versus frequency profile as taught by Kumhyr, applying a known technique to improve similar devices. Nakayama teaches an element determination device configured to detect a signal showing a reflection characteristic and outputting frequency characteristics, but does not detail that the individual characteristic data specifically includes a profile formatted as a reflection amount versus frequency for the purpose of hardware identification. Kumhyr teaches creating an electromagnetic profile of a target device that explicitly includes measuring the amplitude (amount) of the electromagnetic energy versus frequency, as depicted in an amplitude versus frequency graph (Fig. 3; [0020]-[0021]). The motivation for this modification is to improve the accuracy and reliability of the authenticity determination by providing a highly detailed, multi-dimensional signature of the equipment’s reflection behavior across a wide frequency spectrum. This combination represents a predictable variation that satisfies if the signal shows a reflection characteristic, the individual characteristic data would include a reflection amount versus frequency (KSR).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, in view of Kumhyr, in view of Goergen, and further in view of Furse et al. (US 9476932 B2, Pat. Date Oct. 25, 2016, hereinafter, Furse).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Nakayama, teaches:
The individual identification device for target equipment according to claim 2 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll.17-21, 31-41, & 52-54], [Col. 3, ll. 10-16], [Col. 11, ll. 63-65], & [Col. 12, ll. 44-51]), wherein
in a case where the signal showing the electromagnetic characteristic, detected by the coupling circuit ([Col. 13, ll. 34-51]: measures reflection characteristics (S-parameters or “electromagnetic characteristics”), states the signals R11 (non-reflected wave) and R12 (reflected wave) are detected by the mixers 16a/16b, 26a/26b, and bridges 14a/14b/24a/24b, which are part of the signal source system that functions as the “coupling circuit” to detect signals showing reflection characteristics (e.g., R12, R22)), is a signal showing the reflection characteristic ([Col. 13, ll. 34-51]: states the signals R11 (non-reflected wave) and R12 (reflected wave) are detected by the mixers 16a/16b, which are part of the signal source system that functions as the “coupling circuit”, the relationship between R12 and R11 (or R22 and R21 for the second source) is the signal showing the reflection characteristic), the individual characteristic data ([Col. 13, ll. 19-24 & 34-51], [Col. 14, ll. 22-33], [Col. 19, ll. 50-57], & [Col. 20, ll. 42-50]: teaches the derived error factors (ED1, ES1, Ei1-E01, etc.) and the derived S-parameters (Sija), the individual characteristic data identifies these elements, and the impulse or step response derived from the reflected signal, where the data also identifies the type, value and location of components)
Nakayama, is silent in regard to:
includes reflection amount versus time.
However, Furse, further teaches:
includes reflection amount versus time ([Col. 1, ll. 21-44], [Col. 4, ll. 50-65], [Col. 5, ll. 27-40], [Col. 10, ll. 7- 48], [Col. 14, ll. 64-67], [Col. 15, ll. 1-5, 10-28, & 30-42]: teaches that when capturing electromagnetic reflections from an electrical system, the characteristic data is formatted to provide the reflection amount (step or pulse response) as a function of time (Time Domain Reflectometry), describes processing the reflection time into a time-domain impulse or step response, which is the plot of reflection amplitude versus time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakayama’s reflection measurement system by formatting the reflection characteristic data as an amount versus time profile as taught by Furse, representing a predictable variation of known signal processing methods. Nakayama teaches an element determination device that detects a signal showing an electromagnetic reflection characteristic, but does not detail that the individual characteristic data includes a profile formatted as a reflection amount versus time. Furse teaches capturing a time domain reflectometry (TDR) signature, which provides the reflection amount (pulse response) of an electrical system as a function of time to map networks or detect faults. The motivation for this modification is to improve diagnostic efficiency and resolution by allowing the system to determine the exact distance and location of specific impedance changes or faults within the target equipment based on the precise time delay of the reflections, improving, the reflected signal to obtain its impulse or step response to identify and characterize components, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Nakayama, teaches:
The individual identification device for target equipment according to claim 2 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll.17-21, 31-41, & 52-54], [Col. 3, ll. 10-16], [Col. 11, ll. 63-65], & [Col. 12, ll. 44-51]), wherein
in a case where the signal showing the electromagnetic characteristic, detected by the coupling circuit ([Col. 1, 17-21, 31-41, & 52-54] & [Col. 13, ll. 34-51]: measures reflection characteristics (S-parameters or “electromagnetic characteristics”), states the signals R11 (non-reflected wave) and R12 (reflected wave) are detected by the mixers 16a/16b, 26a/26b, and bridges 14a/14b/24a/24b, which are part of the signal source system that functions as the “coupling circuit” to detect signals showing reflection characteristics (e.g., R12, R22), teaches acquiring frequency characteristics and S-parameters (which represent reflection/impedance properties) of a device under test by measuring signals)
Nakayama, is silent in regard to:
is a signal showing the impedance characteristic, the individual characteristic data includes impedance versus frequency.
However, Furse, further teaches:
is a signal showing the impedance characteristic (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 21-44], [Col. 2, ll. 32-42], [Col. 4, ll. 50-67], & [Col. 11, ll. 40-52]: teaches using reflected signals to determine the impedance (Z) of circuit components, the “TX/RX” block 111 in the figure illustrates the coupling circuit, teaches deriving impedance versus frequency data, and further teaches that when capturing electromagnetic reflections to evaluate electrical properties, the system can obtain impedance (Z) measurements that are formatted to fully capture the frequency-dependent complex impedance of the circuit), the individual characteristic data includes impedance versus frequency (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 21-44], [Col. 2, ll. 32-42], [Col. 8, ll. 49-56], [Col. 11, ll. 40-45 & 48-52], [Col. 14, ll. 64-67], & [Col. 15, ll. 1-5 & 10-28]: the SSTDR signal is analyzed in the frequency domain to extract the impedance, “This signature is then converted to the frequency domain using the Fourier transform”, “Both the S and ABCD approaches fully capture the frequency-dependent complex impedances (magnitude and phase)…”).
PNG
media_image13.png
712
1016
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakayama’s measurement system by formatting the characteristic data to include an impedance versus frequency profile as taught by Furse, representing a predictable variation of known signal processing methods. Nakayama teaches an element determination device configured to detect a signal from a target equipment interface to evaluate hardware states, but does not detail that when the signal shows an impedance characteristic, the individual characteristic data specifically includes a profile of impedance versus frequency. Furse teaches processing reflected electromagnetic signals to obtain impedance(Z) measurements, noting that these processing approaches fully capture “frequency-dependent complex impedances,” in order to attain and improve, by combination, knowing that reflection characteristics (S-parameters) and impedance characteristics (Z-parameters) are two standard, mathematically equivalent ways of describing the same electrical network, the conversion between them is a routine calculation in the field, therefore would be obvious to convert the measured S-parameter data of Nakayama into the fundamental property of impedance for the purpose of comparison as taught by Furse. The motivation for this modification is to improve diagnostic precision and resolution by providing a comprehensive, multi-dimensional signature of the equipment’s complex impedance across a frequency spectrum, enabling accurate hardware identification, representing the measured data in a different but equivalent format that may be more intuitive for characterizing the state of certain components, using impedance versus frequency as the individual characteristic data, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Nakayama, teaches:
The individual identification device for target equipment according to claim 2 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll.17-21, 31-41, & 52-54], [Col. 3, ll. 10-16], [Col. 11, ll. 63-65], & [Col. 12, ll. 44-51]), wherein
in a case where the signal showing the electromagnetic characteristic, detected by the coupling circuit ([Col. 13, ll. 34-51]: measures reflection characteristics (S-parameters or “electromagnetic characteristics”), states the signals R11 (non-reflected wave) and R12 (reflected wave) are detected by the mixers 16a/16b, 26a/26b, and bridges 14a/14b/24a/24b, which are part of the signal source system that functions as the “coupling circuit” to detect signals showing reflection characteristics (e.g., R12, R22))
Nakayama, is silent in regard to:
is a signal showing the impedance characteristic, the individual characteristic data includes impedance versus time.
However, Furse, further teaches:
is a signal showing the impedance characteristic (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 21-44], [Col. 2, ll. 32-42], [Col. 4, ll. 50-67], & [Col. 11, ll. 48-58]: teaches using reflected signals to determine the impedance (Z) of circuit components, the “TX/RX” block 111 in the figure illustrates the coupling circuit.), the individual characteristic data includes impedance versus time (Fig. 2; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 21-44], [Col. 2, ll. 32-42], [Col. 4, ll. 50-67], [Col. 10, ll. 40-47], & [Col. 11, ll. 48-58]: teaches analyzing a “pulse response as a function of time” to find the impedance causing a reflection, and the core functionality of SSTDR is to measure a characteristic (e.g., impedance) by analyzing reflections over time).
PNG
media_image14.png
488
1040
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakayama’s measurement system by formatting the characteristic data to include an impedance versus time profile as taught by Furse, representing a predictable variation of known signal processing methods. Nakayama teaches an element determination device configured to detect a signal from a target equipment interface to evaluate hardware states, but does not detail a profile showing the impedance characteristic where data includes impedance versus time. Furse teaches processing reflected electromagnetic signals to obtain impedance (Z) measurements, noting that these signal reflections are evaluated using time domain reflectometry to provide the impedance response of the electrical system as a function of time. The motivation for this modification is to improve diagnostic precision and fault location efficiency by allowing the system to isolate and correlate complex impedance changes with precise time delays along the tested circuit, providing a more detailed dataset (impedance vs. time), rather than a single value to create a unique identifier for equipment, with the application of the SSTDR technique to the problem of equipment identification, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claims 11-14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Agrawal, in view of Nakayama, in view of Kumhyr, in view of Furse, and further in view of Goergen.
Regarding independent claim 11, Agrawal, teaches:
An individual determination method for target equipment (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0010], [0013], [0027]-[0028], [0043]-[0044] & [0047]: discloses a method for evaluating/determining information about an electronic device (target equipment)) comprising: an acquisition procedure of acquiring individual characteristic data about target equipment (Figs. 4 & 5; [0046]-[0053]: teaches the “collection methodology” for acquiring electromagnetic emanation data (signatures) from the DUT), the acquisition procedure including: acquiring a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic (Fig. 2; [0034] & [0039]-[0041]: using sensors (e.g., current clamp 205/ coupling circuit) connected to lines (interface) to acquire electromagnetic emanations (conduction noises) from the DUT), in which a coupling circuit electrically connected to an interface in target equipment detects a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic (Fig.2; [0033]-[0034] & [0039]-[0043]: sensor 2 (coupling circuit), current clamp (205) provides electrical connection to an interface in target equipment (100), using sensors for conductive emanations, which are detected via physical connection to conducting channels (e.g., power lines, interfaces) of the DUT) based on a conduction noise that is conducted to the interface in target equipment (Fig. 2; [0033]-[0034] & [0039]-[0043]: teaches the detection of conductive noise as a source of information, where “Conductive emanations refers to the leakage of modulated signals via electrically conducting channels that are attached to the DUT”), ”), and acquiring individual characteristic data about the target equipment, in which a characteristic measurement device acquires and outputs individual characteristic data showing an electromagnetic individual characteristic of the target equipment (Figs. 1, 3, & 6; [0036], [0041]-[0047], [0054]-[0055] & [0058]: teaches the Signal Acquisition, Processing, and/or Analysis Module (Fig. 1: 103; Fig. 3: 300 (measurement device)) receives signals from sensors, processed them to create a “statistical characterization” of the signal and noise, referred to as “individual characteristic data”, where the “characteristic measurement device”, outputs processed data (S(D) and N(D)), which are the statistical characterizations (individual characteristic data)) on a basis of the electromagnetic characteristic signal from the coupling circuit (Figs. 2 & 3; [0036], [0041]-[0047], [0054]-[0055] & [0058]: the system uses signals from the various sensors (including conductive sensors) as the basis for all further processing and analysis, where the outputs of the sensors 207, 208, and 209 are then fed to the signal acquisition, processing and/or analysis module); and
Agrawal, is silent in regard to:
either a reflection characteristic, or an impedance characteristic, or a pass characteristic, observed in the interface in the target equipment, extracts an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the target equipment from the signal detected thereby, and outputs the electromagnetic characteristic signal,
However, Nakayama, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Agrawal (0034], [0041]: teaches a coupling circuit (current clamp) connected to an interface (ground line) to detect and extract an electromagnetic signal based on conductive emanations (conductive noise)) in view of Nakayama by adding that the detected signal in Nakayama shows either a reflection characteristic, or a pass characteristic observed at target equipment interfaces, and further in view of Furse who teaches an impedance characteristic (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 21-44], [Col. 2, ll. 32-42], [Col. 4, ll. 50-67], & [Col. 11, ll. 48-58]).
either a reflection characteristic, or an impedance characteristic, or a pass characteristic, observed in the interface in the target equipment ((Fig. 6a; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 14-16, 21-23, & 26-27], [Col. 11, ll. 55-61], [Col. 12, ll. 22-23], [Col. 13, ll. 25-28 & 41-51] & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: measures reflection characteristics (measuring a reflected signal R12) and pass characteristics (measuring a transmitted/transmission signal R22 through a transmission element 44, the device then compares these measured characteristics against known, stored characteristics to determine the state of the component), extracts an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the target equipment from the signal detected thereby, and outputs the electromagnetic characteristic signal (Figs. 4 & 5; [Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 10, ll. 14-16, 21-45, & 50-67], [Col. 11, ll. 1-19], [Col. 12, ll. 9-14], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8 & 34-51], [Col. 14, ll. 48-65], [Col. 16, ll. 6-67], [Col. 17, ll. 1-14 & 49-67], [Col. 18, ll. 1-10], [Col. 19, ll. 4-6, 11-20, & 25-49], [Col. 22, ll. 59-67], & [Col. 23, ll. 1-15]: error factor deriving unit 52, signal measurement 53, and transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 collectively perform the function of extracting the electromagnetic characteristic signal (S-parameters) from the raw detected signals, deriving transmission characteristics Sija from measured signals Rij and error factors E, and outputting derived Sija to a determination unit),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agrawal’s acquisition procedure by incorporating Nakayama’s/Furse’s reflection, or an impedance, or a pass characteristic measurements as a predictable variation of known electromagnetic testing methods, observed in the interface in target equipment. Agrawal teaches an acquisition procedure utilizing a coupling circuit to extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal from conduction noise at an interface, but does not detail that the signal is based on either a reflection characteristic or an impedance characteristic, or a pass characteristic observed in the interface. Nakayama teaches an element determination device having a coupling circuit that detects an electromagnetic signal based on a reflection characteristic, an impedance characteristic (Furse), or a pass characteristic observed at the targe equipment interfaces. The motivation for this modification would be to improve, by combination, the EM analysis techniques of Nakayama to obtain a signature and compare it to a known reference signature, providing a detailed characteristic signature of a component or circuit, would improve and provide a more detailed dataset, and further improve the system’s diagnostic efficiency by enabling it to detect a wider array of physical component states and faults beyond conduction noise, rather than a single value to create a unique identifier for equipment, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Agrawal, and Nakayama, are silent in regard to:
an individual determination procedure of, in a comparison and determination device, comparing the individual characteristic data about the target equipment acquired in the acquisition procedure with individual characteristic data about original target equipment stored in a storage device, and performing individual determination on the target equipment, wherein
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine, or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination or an authentication determination, and
However, Kumhyr, further teaches:
an individual determination procedure of, in a comparison and determination device ([Abstract], [0015]-[0017], & [0019]-[0022]: teaches an authenticity module for determining the authenticity of a target electronic device), comparing the individual characteristic data about the target equipment acquired in the acquisition procedure with individual characteristic data about original target equipment stored in a storage device (Figs. 2 & 4; [Abstract], [0015]-[0017], & [0020]-[0022]: discloses the comparison of a measured profile against a stored authentic profile, authenticity module 10 (a comparison and determination device), individual characteristic data from the characteristic measurement device (electromagnetic profile detected at an electronic device 12), individual characteristic data stored in the storage device (baseline electronic profiles of authentic electronic devices stored in an electromagnetic profile database 24)), and performing individual determination on the target equipment (Figs. 2 & 4; [0015]-[0017] & [0020]-[0022]: determines the identity of the specific device or component (e.g., distinguishing a processor from a FPGA)), wherein
the individual determination on the target equipment corresponds to an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0016] & [0020]-[0022]: teaches using the comparison of electromagnetic characteristics to determine if the device is authentic (genuine) or counterfeit (non-genuine)), or a registration determination of whether the target equipment is registered according to an individual identification determination (Figs. 2-4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]) or an authentication determination (Figs. 2 & 4; [0009], [0015]-[0018] & [0020]-[0022]), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Kumhyr’s authenticity determination framework into the Agrawal-Nakayama measurement systems as a known technique to improve similar devices, providing a predictable variation of comparing measured results versus known baseline data, ensure the transmission measurement capabilities that verify if a transmission element matches true value characteristics, the state determination (fault checking) of Nakayama utilizing the high-precision reflection/impedance measurement and comparison apparatus. To perform the authenticity determination, particularly for devices where signal propagation through the device (pass characteristic) is critical for verifying the identity, of Kumhyr, to ensure that the components under test or target equipment are not only functional but also genuine, preventing security and business risks. The combination of Agrawal and Nakayama teaches extracting and measuring electromagnetic signals for target equipment evaluation but fails to teach an individual determination procedure comprising comparing the acquired data with individual characteristic data about original target equipment stored in a storage device to perform an authenticity determination of whether the target equipment is genuine or non-genuine. Kumhyr teaches the method/functional limitation of performing authenticity determination (genuine vs. counterfeit) by comparing measured electromagnetic profiles against expected profiles, noting that counterfeit devices have different electromagnetic profiles, if a counterfeit chip (e.g., a processor mimicking an FPGA) is placed in the target equipment, its internal impedance and signal propagation delays (pass characteristics) would differ from the original authentic equipment, to execute an authenticity determination of whether an electronic device under test is a genuine device or a non-genuine counterfeit, and Nakayama’s device would detect the difference. Kumhyr further teaches an authenticity module incorporating a storage device that stores expected electromagnetic profiles of original, authentic devices and compares them against measured profiles to determine if the target equipment is genuine or counterfeit. The motivation to combine prior art references and modification is to improve security and supply chain auditing, by leveraging accurate electromagnetic signature extraction to reliably detect and prevent the use of counterfeit or unauthorized electronic components or hardware, and protecting supply chain integrity (KSR).
Agrawal, Nakayama, and Kumhyr, are silent in regard to:
the individual determination method further includes a storage procedure of storing original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment in the storage device,
the storage procedure includes storing the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment stored in the storage device, as original individual characteristic data, with the individual characteristic data being linked to identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment,
the individual determination procedure includes outputting the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment when there is a match between the individual characteristic data about the target equipment in the acquisition procedure and the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment stored in the storage device.
However, Goergen, further teaches:
the individual determination method further includes a storage procedure of storing original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment in the storage device ([Abstract], [0014]-[0016], [0026]-[0027], [0031], & [0035]-[0038]),
the storage procedure includes storing the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment stored in the storage device, as original individual characteristic data, with the individual characteristic data being linked to identification information shown by a model name or a serial number of the original target equipment ([Abstract], [0014]-[0016], [0026]-[0027], [0031], & [0035]-[0038]: teaches a storage procedure where a hardware authentication ID is combined and linked with secure identification information containing the specific serial numbers associated with the original electronic components),
the individual determination procedure includes outputting the identification information including the model name or the serial number in the original individual characteristic data about the original target equipment when there is a match between the individual characteristic data about the target equipment in the acquisition procedure and the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment stored in the storage device ([0031], [0039]-[0042], [0066], & [0075]: teaches that when the comparison between the acquired representation and the stored original ID shows a match, the system verifies authentication and the processor outputs a message containing the linked identification information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Goergen’s known technique of linking and outputting specific serial numbers to the authenticity determination system of the combined prior art as a substitution to predictably improve similar devices. The combination of Agrawal, Nakayama, and Kumhyr teaches comparing electromagnetic profiles to stored baselines for authenticity but fails to teach a storage procedure where the original individual characteristic data is linked to identification information shown by a model name or a serial number, and outputting the identification information including the model name or the serial number upon a match. Goergen teaches an authentication system wherein a stored hardware authentication ID is linked with secure identification information, specifically comprising confidential serial numbers associated with specific equipment components ([0035]). Goergen further discloses an individual determination procedure wherein upon a successful match between the acquired representation and the stored ID, the processor or communication port verifies authentication and outputs a message conveying the verified status and the linked components data ([0039]-[0041]). The motivation for this predictable variation and modification is to enhance administrative tracking and inventory management by displaying the exact serial number or model name of the verified genuine equipment upon a successful authenticity match, allowing users to quickly verify the specific origin/source of the genuine target equipment (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Agrawal, teaches:
The Examiner is combining Agrawal in view of Kumhyr by implementing the comparison and determination device (authenticity module) of Kumhyr that receives the arranged profile for data analysis ([0021]))
The individual determination method for target equipment according to claim 11 (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [Abstract], [0010], [0013], [0027]-[0028], [0043]-[0044] & [0047]), wherein
the acquisition procedure includes arranging the individual characteristic data about the target equipment (Fig. 4; [0042]-[0044] & [0054]-[0056]: teaches the Analysis Methodology is dedicating to “arranging” the raw collected data, involves processing the raw “message samples” to extract refined characteristics), which arranges the individual characteristic data about the target equipment from the characteristic measurement device by eliminating a noise (Fig. 6; [Abstract], [0042], [0054]-[0055], & [0058]: teaches the derived signal is separated into a signal component (desired information) and noise component (unwanted noise) and works to eliminate the noise by averaging, figure further illustrates “Perform Signal Extraction” operation, obtain N(D), statistical characterization of noise for the DOP) or extracting specific information from the individual characteristic data (Figs. 6-7; [Abstract], [0013], [0055], [0058], & [Claim 1]: teaches the process of signal extraction is the direct counterpart to noise elimination, extracting the specific, desired information (“signal component”) from the raw data aggregate that contains both signal and noise, figure further illustrates “Perform Signal Extraction” operation, obtain S(D), statistical characterization of signal for the DOP) about the target equipment outputted by the characteristic measurement device (Fig. 3; [0041]-[0044] & [0053]-[0055]: teaches the raw “message samples” outputted by Signal Acquisition and Storage array (312, 313, 314) are the inputs to the signal/noise extraction process and teaches combining data for all device operations that satisfy a specific predicate), and outputs the arranged individual characteristic data to the comparison and determination device (Fig. 7; [0042], [0046]-[0047], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0059], & [0061]: teaches the refined, predicate-specific data (NP1, SP1) is used by the statistical discriminator, comparing for the final determination, where the results of the signal and noise extraction processes, the aggregate signal signature (S(D)) and aggregate noise signature (N(D)) are the “arranged data” that are output for use in the next stage, the determination process (scoring device) compares them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Agrawal’s data arrangement procedure to output the arranged data to Kumhyr’s comparison device, representing a substitution of known components to yield a predictable variation. Agrawal teaches an acquisition procedure that arranges individual characteristic data by extracting specific signal components and eliminating noise using a filtering and pre-amplification array and a separator. Agrawal does not detail outputting this arranged individual characteristic data to a comparison and determination device for an authenticity evaluation. Kumhyr teaches a comparison and determination device, an authenticity module, that receives and analyzes electromagnetic characteristic profiles. The motivation for this modification is to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the authenticity determination by ensuring the comparison module only evaluates refined, high-fidelity signals devoid of background electromagnetic interference (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Agrawal, teaches:
The individual determination method for target equipment according to claim 11 (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0010]-[0011], [0013], [0027]-[0028], [0043]-[0044] & [0047]), wherein
the storage procedure includes:
acquiring a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic (Figs. 2 & 5; [0032], [0034]-[0035] & [0039]-[0043]: using sensors (e.g., current clamp 205/coupling circuit) to acquire electromagnetic emanations (conduction noises) from the DUT), in which the coupling circuit detects a signal showing an electromagnetic characteristic (Figs. 2 & 5; [0032], [0034]-[0035] & [0039]-[0043]: sensor 2 (coupling circuit), current clamp (205) provides electrical connection to an interface (power/ground lines) in target equipment (100), using sensors for conductive emanations, which are detected via physical connection to conducting channels (e.g., power lines, interfaces) of the DUT, sensor array includes a current clamp 205, which is the specific sensor for acquiring conductive emanations) based on a conduction noise that is conducted to the interface in target equipment (Figs. 2 & 5; [0013], [0032], [0034]-[0035] & [0039]-[0044]: teaches the detection of conductive noise as a source of information, where “Conductive emanations refers to the leakage of modulated signals via electrically conducting channels that are attached to the DUT”, sensor array includes a current clamp 205, which is the specific sensor for acquiring conductive emanations), extracts an electromagnetic characteristic signal showing an individual characteristic of the original target equipment (Figs. 3 & 6; [0013], [0028], [0034], [0041]-[0046] & [0055]: Fig. 6 illustrates “Perform Signal Extraction operation on A” to obtain S(D), the statistical characterization of signal for the DOP, and “in step 620 the message signal (also referred to as the signal component) is refined and extracted from N(D) aggregate message signals by a separated. For example, this can be done by averaging”, this is the extraction of the individual characteristic signature from the raw signal) from the signal detected thereby ([0013], [0034], [0041]-[0046] & [0055]), and outputs the electromagnetic characteristic signal (Fig. 7; [0042], [0046]-[0047], [0055], [0057]-[0059], & [0061]: teaches the refined, predicate-specific data (NP1, SP1) is used by the statistical discriminator, comparing for the final determination, where the results of the signal and noise extraction processes, the aggregate signal signature (S(D)) and aggregate noise signature (N(D)) are the “arranged data” that are output for use in the next stage, the determination process (scoring device) compares them); and
acquiring the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment (Figs. 4 & 5; [0013], [0036] & [0046]-[0053]: teaches the “collection methodology” for acquiring electromagnetic emanation data from the DUT, obtain S(D), the statistical characterization of signal for the DOP, this is acquired individual characteristic data, which is output for use in further analysis (Fig. 7)), in which the characteristic measurement device acquires the individual characteristic data showing an electromagnetic individual characteristic of the original target equipment (Figs. 1, 3, & 6; [0013], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0046]-0047], [0055] & [0058]: teaches the Signal Acquisition, Processing, and/or Analysis Module (Fig. 1: 103; Fig. 3: 300) receives signals from sensors, processed them to create a “statistical characterization” of the signal and noise, referred to as “individual characteristic data”, where the “characteristic measurement device”, outputs processed data (S(D) and N(D)), which are the statistical characterizations (individual characteristic data)) on a basis of the electromagnetic characteristic signal of the original target equipment, from the coupling circuit (Figs. 2 & 3; [0013], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0046]-[0047], [0055] & [0058]: the system uses signals from the various sensors (including conductive sensors) as the basis for all further processing and analysis, where the outputs of the sensors 207, 208, and 209 are then fed to the signal acquisition, processing and/or analysis module),
Agrawal, is silent in regard to:
either a reflection characteristic or an impedance characteristic, or a pass characteristic, observed in the interface in the target equipment, and outputting the individual characteristic data; and with the individual characteristic data being linked to identification information shown by a model name, a serial number, or the like of the original target equipment.
However, Nakayama, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Agrawal and Nakayama in view of Kumhyr by implementing storage procedure (Step 34) wherein the authentic (original) electronic devices profiles are generated by monitoring the original equipment using the exact same sensors and predetermined conditions that will later be used on the target equipment under test (Step 36), ([Fig. 2; [0020]-[0022]).
either a reflection characteristic or an impedance characteristic, or a pass characteristic, observed in the interface in the target equipment (Fig. 6a, [Col. 1, ll. 31-36], [Col. 10, ll. 14-16, 21-23, & 26-27], [Col. 11, ll. 55-61], [Col. 12, ll. 22-23], [Col. 13, ll. 25-28 & 41-51], [Col. 19, ll. 4-49] & [Col. 21, ll. 1-3]: taught by first signal source 10, that is electrically connected to the calibration element (target equipment) via an output terminal 19 and switch 31, where the system is designed to detect signals based on reflection, where the system measures signals reflected, signal source includes bridges and mixers (14a, 14b, 16a, 16b) that separate outgoing signal from the incoming reflected signal (R12), where R12 is described as “a result of a measurement of the signal reflected by the reflection element”), and outputting the individual characteristic data ([Col. 1, ll. 17-21 & 31-41], [Col. 13, ll. 7-8] & [Col. 19, ll. 4-49]: teaches the transmission characteristic deriving unit 54 is the “characteristic measurement device”, received the foundational data (Rij from the “coupling circuit” and E from the deriving unit), where its primary function is to output the “individual characteristic data,” which is the derived S parameters (Sija) of the target transmission element 44); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Agrawal-Nakayama acquisition method to include generating the stored baseline data by executing the exact same acquisition procedure on original target equipment as taught by Kumhyr. In order to attain and improve a reflection, or an impedance, or a pass characteristic, observed in the interface in target equipment, and the EM analysis techniques of Nakayama to obtain a signature and compare it to a known reference signature, providing a detailed characteristic signature of a component or circuit. The combination of Agrawal and Nakayama teaches an acquisition procedure utilizing a coupling circuit to extract an electromagnetic characteristic signal from target equipment, but fail to detail a storage procedure where this exact acquisition method is performed on original target equipment to acquire and store baseline characteristics data. Kumhyr teaches a storage procedure (Step 34) wherein authentic (original) electronic device profiles are generated by subjecting the authentic devices to the exact same monitoring and predetermined operating conditions as the subsequent target devices under test (Step 36). The motivation for this substitution is to improve the accuracy of the authenticity determination by establishing a 1-to-1 comparative baseline, eliminating environmental and testing variables between the reference device and the target device and provide a more detailed dataset, rather than a single value to create a unique identifier for equipment, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Agrawal, teaches:
The Examiner is combining Agrawal in view of Kumhyr by implementing the comparison and determination device (authenticity module) that receives the arranged profile data for analysis and the storage procedure (Step 34) that generates the authentic (original) baseline profiles by applying the exact same signal processing and conditions used in the acquisition procedure (Step 36) and outputs this data to the electromagnetic profile database (storage device), ([Fig. 2; [0020]-[0022]).
The individual determination method for target equipment according to claim 13 (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0010]-[0011], [0013], [0027]-[0028], [0042]-[0044], & [0047]), wherein
the acquisition procedure includes arranging the individual characteristic data about the target equipment (Figs. 4 & 5; [0042] & [0046]-[0055]: teaches the “collection methodology” for acquiring electromagnetic emanation data from the DUT, and teaches processing (“arranging”) signals by performing signal and noise extraction operations to obtain a “statistical characterization”), which arranges the individual characteristic data about the target equipment from the characteristic measurement device by eliminating a noise or extracting specific information from the individual characteristic data about the target equipment (Figs. 1, 3, & 6; [0041]-[0042], [0046]-0055] & [0058]: teaches the Signal Acquisition, Processing, and/or Analysis Module (Fig. 1: 103; Fig. 3: 300) receives signals from sensors, processed them to create a “statistical characterization” of the signal and noise, referred to as “individual characteristic data”, where the “characteristic measurement device”, outputs processed data (S(D) and N(D)), which are the statistical characterizations (individual characteristic data), and teaches a separator “extracts noise signal (also known as the noise component)” and “the message signal (also referred to as the signal component) is refined and extracted”, eliminating noise and extracting information) outputted by the characteristic measurement device (Fig. 3; [0041]-[0044] & [0053]-[0055]), and outputs the arranged individual characteristic data to the comparison and determination device (Fig. 3; [0042], [0046]-[0047], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0059] & [0061]: teaches the refined, predicate-specific data (NP1, SP1) is used by the statistical discriminator, comparing for the final determination, where the results of the signal and noise extraction processes, the aggregate signal signature (S(D)) and aggregate noise signature (N(D)) are the “arranged data” that are output for use in the next stage, the determination process (scoring device) compares them, the combination uses stored, arranged data), and
the storage procedure includes arranging the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment (Figs. 3 & 7; [0041]-[0044], [0047], [0052]-[0055] & [0057]-[0058]: signal acquisition and storage array 311 (storage device), whose purposes is to “sample signals and store them”, aggregate (stored data): describes storing the collected and processed data (“arranging”), the “statistical characterization” (individual characteristic data) for a known original DOP (original target equipment) is stored for later use in the analysis phase), which arranges the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment from the characteristic measurement device by eliminating a noise (Fig. 7; [0042], [0054]-[0058], & [0071]: combines and averages the initial statistical characteristics (N(D)s and S(D)s) to form a new statistical characterization (NP1, SP1), involves extracting the “message signals” (specific information) from the raw aggregate signals and separating out the “noise component” (eliminating noise), and the creation of the statistical characterization (e.g., the aggregate signal signature) is the act of “arranging” the extracted information, averaging is performed to reduce/eliminate noise) or extracting specific information from the individual characteristic data about the original target equipment outputted by the characteristic measurement device (Fig. 7; [0013], [0042], [0054]-[0058], & [0071]: extracts the specific information related to predicate P1, “of all DOPs that satisfy P1”, and involves extracting the “message signals” (specific information) from the raw aggregate signals and separating out the “noise component” (eliminating noise), and the creation of the statistical characterization (e.g., the aggregate signal signature) is the act of “arranging” the extracted information), the stored signature is derived from the signal component (extracted specific information) and is used for later comparison, and “combines statistical characteristics N(D) and S(D) for all DOPs which satisfy a given predicate”, combinations uses stored, arranged data), and outputs the arranged individual characteristic data to the storage device ([0042], [0054]-[0058], & [0071]: the entire process of statistical characterization is for the purpose of comparison and analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Agrawal’s noise elimination and signal extraction arrangement to output to Kumhyr’s comparison device, and to predictably apply this identical arrangement step to the original target equipment to output to Kumhyr’s storage device as a substitution of known data processing steps. Agrawal teaches arranging individual characteristic data by extracting specific signal components and eliminating the noise using a filtering array and a separator, but does not detail outputting this arranged data to a comparison device during an acquisition procedure, nor performing this identical arrangement during a storage procedure to output the arranged data about original target equipment to a storage device. Kumhyr teaches an authenticity module that compares measured profiles against stored baseline profiles of authentic equipment generated under the exact same predetermined testing conditions, outputting to a database. The motivation for this predictable variation is to improve the accuracy of the authenticity determination by establishing a 1-to-1 comparative baseline, ensuring that both the stored baseline profiles and the tested target profiles are devoid of background electromagnetic interference, and provide a more detailed dataset, rather than a single value to create a unique identifier for equipment, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Agrawal, teaches:
The individual determination method for target equipment according to claim 11 (Figs. 2 & 5; [Abstract], [0010], [0013], [0027]-[0028], [0043]-[0044] & [0047]), wherein
the interface in the target equipment at which a voltage, or a current is observed ([0033]-[0034] & [0041]), includes a power or communication cable or a terminal of a power or communication cable in the target equipment ([0032]-[0034], [0041]), or a whole or part of a case of the target equipment (Figs. 11-12; [0078], [0082]-[0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN111400695A/CN111400695B discloses a method, a device equipment and a medium for generating an equipment fingerprint. The method comprises acquiring equipment information characteristics, the equipment information characteristics comprise equipment information characteristics belonging to a main identification attribute and equipment information characteristics belonging to an auxiliary identification attribute, determining a target feature set comprising at least two target device information features from the device information features based on a preset rule, and generating a device fingerprint based on a sim hash local sensitivity algorithm according to the information characteristics of each target device in the target characteristic. Iwamura et al. (US2023/0037023A1) discloses a registration device which is the one that an individual identification system is provided with, the individual identification system including the registration device, a verification device, and an identification device and identifying an individual that is the object to be identified.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 August 13, 2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights