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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s arguments/filing filed on April 11, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/18/2026 was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s drawings submitted on 4/11/2024.
Oath/Declaration
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s oath submitted on 4/11/2024
Application Data Sheet
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s application data sheet submitted on 4/11/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 3 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims recite the phrase, “magnetic field failing to satisfy a threshold”. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase, “satisfying a threshold”. For instance, is a magnetic field required to be greater or less than a threshold in order to satisfy a threshold?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
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 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1.) Claims 13, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200074120, Meiler
In regards to claim 13, Meiler teaches a method, comprising:monitoring an electromagnetic coupling comprising a first magnetic field generated by a source disposed within an external component by use of a sensor physically coupled to circuitry configured to control the external component(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0045, the switch 220 need not be mechanically switched. For example, the switch 220 may be magnetically switched. The structure 204 may include a magnet or a ferromagnetic material[i.e. note: generates magnetic field] according to the structure of the switch 220 such that the switch 220 changes state as the device 102 is mounted to or removed from the external component 104);detecting a tamper event based, at least in part, on the monitoring(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0062, Referring to FIG. 6A, in 604 the removal of a device 102 from an external component 104 is detected.); and disabling at least one function of the circuitry in response to detecting the tamper event(US 20200074120, Meiler, Payson, para. 0046, multiple switches 220 in different locations and/or different configurations may be used. In some embodiments, any one of these switches 220 may be used by the anti-tamper circuitry 110 to disable at least one function of the circuitry 112.).
In regards to claim 14, Meiler teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the tamper event is detected based on a magnetic field strength detected by the sensor(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0021, In particular, the anti-tamper circuitry 110 is coupled to the external component 104 through coupling 114. This coupling 114 may be a mechanical, electrical, optical, magnetic, other similar couplings, or a combination of such couplings.).
In regards to claim 16, Meiler teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the circuitry and the sensor are disposed on a same structure(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 12 and para. 0017, the system 100a includes a device 102 configured to be mounted to an external component 104. The device 102 includes anti-tamper circuitry 110 and circuitry 112[i.e. note: the anti-tamper circuitry, implicitly may be contained on a circuit board]).
In regards to claim 17, Meiler teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the circuitry and the sensor are disposed on a same printed circuit board(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 12 and para. 0017, the system 100a includes a device 102 configured to be mounted to an external component 104. The device 102 includes anti-tamper circuitry 110 and circuitry 112[i.e. note: the anti-tamper circuitry, implicitly may be contained on a circuit board]).
In regards to claim 18, Meiler teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the tamper event is detected in response to separation of the circuitry from the external component by a distance threshold(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0064, the detecting of the removal of the device 102 may include detecting the physical separation of structure of the device 102 and a structure of the external component 104. For example, the switch 220 may detect when device 102 is moved relative to the external component 104.).
In regards to claim 19, Meiler teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising implementing one or more mitigation actions in response to detecting the tamper event, the mitigation actions comprising one or more of disconnecting the circuitry from a system power source, connecting the circuitry to an energy storage device, causing a tamper notification to be transmitted over an electronic communication network, and causing data to be erased from a memory of the circuitry(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0023, the anti-tamper circuitry 110 may be configured to disable at least one function of the circuitry 112. The particular function of the circuitry 112 may include a capability of general processing, the use of particular data, the ability to properly respond to authentication challenges, or the like. In some embodiments, data stored in the circuitry 112 may be erased.).
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 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 of this title, 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.
1.) Claims 1, 2, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200074120, Meiler in view of IDS supplied reference, US 20110267190, Payson
In regards to claim 1, Meiler teaches a device configured to be mounted to an external component, comprising:
first circuitry configured to control the external component(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 2 and para. 0017, Referring to FIGS. 1A and 2, the system 100a includes a device 102 configured to be mounted to an external component 104. The device 102 includes anti-tamper circuitry 110 and circuitry 112);
anti-tamper circuitry electrically connected to the first circuitry(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 2, items 110[anti-tampering circuitry] and item 104[external component); and Meiler does not teach an electromagnetic coupling established between the anti-tamper circuitry and a source disposed within the external component;wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to disable at least one function of the first circuitry in response to detecting a tamper event pertaining to the electromagnetic coupling such that the at least one function of the first circuitry remains disabled in response to clearance of the tamper event However, Payson teaches an electromagnetic coupling established between the anti-tamper circuitry and a source disposed within the external component(US 20110267190, Payson, para. 0041, "Proprietary target circuitry" or "circuit" "proprietary circuitry" or "circuit" or "target circuitry" or "circuit" generally refers to the electronics to be protected from probing/intrusion/attack from external sources such as electronic probing or signal injection. Any circuitry which is also part of the RF anti-tampering circuitry may be deemed `proprietary` and, as such, fall under this category to be protected from attempts at unauthorized tampering or probing.);wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to disable at least one function of the first circuitry in response to detecting a tamper event pertaining to the electromagnetic coupling such that the at least one function of the first circuitry remains disabled in response to clearance of the tamper event(US 20110267190, Payson, para. 0065, The detection of a variance in the RF signature such as due to a probing attack may, in an alternative embodiment, be used to generate a predetermined anti-tamper event such as, for instance, the zeroization or scrambling of an electronic memory, reconfiguration of one or more device inputs or outputs (such as in an FPGA) or opening of an internal switch or one or more fusible links). 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 teaching of Meiler with the teaching of Payson because a user would have been motivated to use predetermined RF signaling, taught by Payson, in order to enhance tampering evidence detection taught by Meiler(Payson, para. 0026)
.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 1, wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is coupled to a sensor configured to detect a first magnetic field generated by the source(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0021, The device 102 includes anti-tamper circuitry 110 electrically connected to circuitry 112. The anti-tamper circuitry 110 is configured to disable at least one function of the circuitry 112 when the device 102 is removed from the external component 104. In particular, the anti-tamper circuitry 110 is coupled to the external component 104 through coupling 114. This coupling 114 may be a mechanical, electrical, optical, magnetic, other similar couplings, or a combination of such couplings.).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 2, wherein the sensor is physically coupled to the first circuitry(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0022, Embodiments described herein may be used anywhere where a device 102 should stay physically paired to the system 100a, the external component circuitry 120, the other circuitry 122, or another component or device to which they are mounted and/or associated.).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 2, wherein the anti-tamper circuitry, first circuitry, and sensor are disposed on a same printed circuit board(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 12 and para. 0017, the system 100a includes a device 102 configured to be mounted to an external component 104. The device 102 includes anti-tamper circuitry 110 and circuitry 112[i.e. note: the anti-tamper circuitry, implicitly may be contained on a circuit board]).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 1, wherein the source is physically coupled to circuitry of the external component(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0022, Embodiments described herein may be used anywhere where a device 102 should stay physically paired to the system 100a, the external component circuitry 120, the other circuitry 122, or another component or device to which they are mounted and/or associated.).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 1, wherein the first circuitry comprises a tube auxiliary unit and wherein the source is physically coupled to an x-ray tube of the external component(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 2 and para. 0018, Particular examples of the device 102 include an authentication circuit for a system, a control circuitry for an x-ray tube, or the like.).
2.) Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200074120, Meiler in view of IDS supplied reference, US 20110267190, Payson and further in view of EP 2985619, Dwyer
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 2. The combination of Meiler and Payson do not teach wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to detect the tamper event in response to a strength of the first magnetic field detected by the sensor failing to satisfy a threshold However, Dwyer teaches wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to detect the tamper event in response to a strength of the first magnetic field detected by the sensor failing to satisfy a threshold (EP 2985619, Dwyer, para. 0138, It should be recognized that the values 390, 400, 410 do not directly identify passing, failing, or marginal conditions of the magnetic field sensors that generate the values. Another processor, for example, the above-described engine control processor, receives the values and makes the determination.). 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 teaching the combination of Meiler and Payson with the teaching of Dwyer because a user would have been motivated to use magnetic field sensors, taught by Dwyer, in order to measure the accuracy in the magnetic coupling used for tampering detection in the system taught by the combination of Meiler and Payson(Dwyer, para. 0034)
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Meiler, Payson and Dwyer teach the device of claim 3, wherein the threshold is configured in accordance with tolerance characteristics of one or more of the sensor and the source of the first magnetic field(EP 2985619, Dwyer, para. 0028, FIG. 12B is a flow chart showing a method of communicating categorized deviation values of a proximity signal generated by a magnetic field sensor;). 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 teaching the combination of Meiler and Payson with the teaching of Dwyer because a user would have been motivated to use magnetic field sensors, taught by Dwyer, in order to measure the accuracy in the magnetic coupling used for tampering detection in the system taught by the combination of Meiler and Payson(Dwyer, para. 0034)
3.) Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200074120, Meiler in view of IDS supplied reference, US 20110267190, Payson and further in view of US 8344881, Hays
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 2. The combination of Meiler and Payson do not teach wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to detect the tamper event in response to detection of a second magnetic field different to the first magnetic field However, Hays teaches wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to detect the tamper event in response to detection of a second magnetic field different to the first magnetic field(US 8344881, Hays, col. 2, lines 56-59, The first tamper detector may be configured to sense a change in a magnetic field[i.e. note: 1st and 2nd magnetic fields] surrounding the first circuit card and may generate a magnetic pulse for transmission to the second circuit card.). 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 teaching the combination of Meiler and Payson with the teaching of Hays because a user would have been motivated to use cascading measurements of magnetic fields, taught by Hays, in order to mitigate an intruder trying to defeat the anti-tampering system taught by the combination of Meiler and Payson(Hays, col. 4, lines 28-37)
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Meiler, Payson and Hays teach the device of claim 5, wherein the anti-tamper circuitry comprises a secondary sensor configured to detect the second magnetic field(US 8344881, Hays, col. 2, lines 59-62, The second tamper detector may be configured to sense a change[i.e. note: 2nd magnetic field] in a magnetic field surrounding the second circuit card and may generate a magnetic pulse for transmission to the third circuit card.). 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 teaching the combination of Meiler and Payson with the teaching of Hays because a user would have been motivated to use cascading measurements of magnetic fields, taught by Hays, in order to mitigate an intruder trying to defeat the anti-tampering system taught by the combination of Meiler and Payson(Hays, col. 4, lines 28-37)
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Meiler, Payson and Hays teach the device of claim 5, wherein the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to distinguish the second magnetic field from the first magnetic field based, at least in part, on an orientation of the second magnetic field(US 8344881, Hays, col. 5, lines 57-60, It will be understood that the flux produced by magnetic generator 16 may be oriented along a spatial line which provides a clear magnetic path to the adjacent magnetic sensor of another circuit card.). 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 teaching the combination of Meiler and Payson with the teaching of Hays because a user would have been motivated to use cascading measurements of magnetic fields, taught by Hays, in order to mitigate an intruder trying to defeat the anti-tampering system taught by the combination of Meiler and Payson(Hays, col. 4, lines 28-37)
4.) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200074120, Meiler in view of IDS supplied reference, US 20110267190, Payson and further in view of IDS supplied reference, US 20140108786, Kreft
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Meiler and Payson teach the device of claim 2. The combination of Meiler and Payson do not teach further comprising electromagnetic shielding configured to shield the sensor from a second magnetic field different to the first magnetic field However, Kreft teaches further comprising electromagnetic shielding configured to shield the sensor from a second magnetic field different to the first magnetic field(US 20140108786, Kreft, para. 0121, Furthermore, in one further embodiment of the invention, the cocoon comprises a shield to prevent interference with the predetermined excitation from the outside of the tamper-protected hardware. Another aspect of the shielding is to prevent undesirable emittance of the excitation to the outer world beyond the limits of the cocoon serving as covering (e.g. Electro-Magnetic-Interference, EMI, in case the excitation is of this type).). 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 teaching the combination of Meiler and Payson with the teaching of Kreft because a user would have been motivated to use Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) in order to verify the integrity of the anti-tamper hardware taught by the combination of Meiler and Payson(Kreft, para. 0021)
5.) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 20200074120, Meiler in view of US 8344881, Hays
In regards to claim 15, Meiler teaches the method of claim 13. Meiler does not teach wherein the tamper event is detected in response to detection of a second magnetic field different to the first magnetic field However, Hays teaches wherein the tamper event is detected in response to detection of a second magnetic field different to the first magnetic field (US 8344881, Hays, col. 2, lines 56-59, The first tamper detector may be configured to sense a change in a magnetic field[i.e. note: 1st and 2nd magnetic fields] surrounding the first circuit card and may generate a magnetic pulse for transmission to the second circuit card.). 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 teaching of Meiler with the teaching of Hays because a user would have been motivated to use cascading measurements of magnetic fields, taught by Hays, in order to mitigate an intruder trying to defeat the anti-tampering system taught by Meiler (Hays, col. 4, lines 28-37)
6.) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200074120, Meiler in view of AU 2010333876, Amante
In regards to claim 20, Meiler teaches an anti-tamper system, comprising:an external component comprising a source configured to generate a magnetic field(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0021, the anti-tamper circuitry 110 is coupled to the external component 104 through coupling 114. This coupling 114 may be a mechanical, electrical, optical, magnetic, other similar couplings, or a combination of such couplings.);a device comprising first circuitry configured to control the external component(US 20200074120, Meiler, fig. 2 and para. 0017, Referring to FIGS. 1A and 2, the system 100a includes a device 102 configured to be mounted to an external component 104. The device 102 includes anti-tamper circuitry 110 and circuitry 112);a sensor physically coupled to the first circuitry(US 20200074120, Meiler, para. 0022, Embodiments described herein may be used anywhere where a device 102 should stay physically paired to the system 100a, the external component circuitry 120, the other circuitry 122, or another component or device to which they are mounted and/or associated.); and Meiler does not teach anti-tamper circuitry electrically connected to the first circuitry and configured to disable a function of the first circuitry in response to a strength of the magnetic field detected by the sensor failing to satisfy a threshold However, Amante teaches anti-tamper circuitry electrically connected to the first circuitry and configured to disable a function of the first circuitry in response to a strength of the magnetic field detected by the sensor failing to satisfy a threshold (AU 2010333876, Amante, para. 0008, Another embodiment of the present invention includes a method of operating an encoder for a fluid dispensing system. The method includes the steps of sensing a parameter of a magnetic field generated by the fluid dispensing system. This parameter of the magnetic field is compared to a predetermined threshold value. An output signal operable to disable the dispensing system is generated on the condition that the sensed parameter of the magnetic field is above or below the predetermined threshold value.) 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 teaching of Meiler with the teaching of Amante because a user would have been motivated to use a magnetic field threshold, taught by Amante, in order to determine when to disable the external device taught by Meiler(Amante, para. 0008)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7469. The examiner can normally be reached on 571 270 7469 from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Taghi Arani, can be reached on 571 272 3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/GREGORY A LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
/TAGHI T ARANI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights