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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2024 and 10/22/2025 were filed along with and after the mailing date of the Non-Provisional Patent Application on 05/03/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Restriction/Election
Examiner submitted Restriction/Election Requirement on 12/04/2025. In response to that, Applicant elected claims 1-7 under Group I. Claims 8-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Election/Restriction received on 01/27/2026. In the response, claims 1-7 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Specification
Applicant’s submitted specification has been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Drawings
Applicant’s submitted drawings have been reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, and 5 do fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a system” and “a method” being performed by a processor of a server and method claim.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, and 5 recite the abstract idea which falls into the category of Mathematical concepts - “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”.
These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The limitations recite Abstract Idea as follows:
“a true-random number generator (TRNG) configured to output a true-random number;
[[a random-access memory configured to]] store the true-random number as a one-time password and a counter value received from a counter; and
[[control logic configured to]] send the one-time password to an advanced encryption standard (AES) block cipher configured to encrypt the one-time password with the counter value to generate a signature; and
[[a controller in communication with the hardware extension, the controller configured to]]: receive, from the AES block cipher, the signature;
store the signature [[at a memory associated with the controller]]; and
increase the counter value at the counter to establish a second counter value.
In above steps, the abstract idea is to apply true random number generator (TRNG) through a cryptographic algorithm in order to encrypt communication. These steps are the actions that can be performed in a human mind using pen and paper. For instance, a true random number generator (TRNG) can be performed on paper, but only by using external, non-deterministic physical actions, rather than relying on human choice, which is biased. Methods include tossing dice, drawing numbered tokens from a container.
This type of abstract idea is related to performing mathematical operations as defined by the claimed steps listed above. As such, the claims fall under at least the category of “an idea of itself” and “mathematical relations / formulas”. The phrase “an idea of itself is used to describe an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper." Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, data is simply being generated/manipulated by using mathematical operations which was ruled abstract in:
a. Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);
b. A mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams).
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than performing cryptographic operations on data using defined mathematical formula comprised in the algorithm as described in the claims that can be performed mentally.
The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts. For example, a mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams). While the specific facts of the case differ from these cases, the claims are still directed to receiving data and determining if the data is in plaintext format or not and if it is, then encrypt the data which is a mental process performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Further, each and every step can be performed mentally and with pen and paper. The process of cryptographic operations using random number generator on data using defined mathematical formula comprised in the algorithm as described in the claims are widely used.
Step 2A (prong 2) Identifying an integrated practical application
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the 101 analyses, claims recite abstract idea to apply true random number generator (TRNG) through a cryptographic algorithm in order to encrypt communication which is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Instant disclosure mentions that the steps are performed through a module which includes a true random number generator (TRNG). The TRNG may be a device that generates a random number every time. The TRNG may generate the random number from a physical process that is capable of producing entropy. A TRNG may be utilized to create random cryptographic keys and a nonce that are needed to encrypt and sign data (instant disclosure [0024]).
The use of additional elements such as a processor/computer and memory as tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the Claims do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims.
Finding the claims to be directed toward an abstract idea, however, is not the end of the inquiry. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012). Rather, the second step requires determining whether additional substantive limitations narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself. Another way of stating the test is whether the claim language provides “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The considerations are whether the claim includes:
• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
• Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application;
• Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a generic device, modules when taken in combination with the functional elements claims are directed to system and method for performing mathematical calculations, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a general purpose device). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the Individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions which is encryption of data items. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, which fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers – in our common day-to-day interactions. Note: Applicant’s disclosure states a generic computer circuit is used to implement the security method of example embodiments (Instant disclosure ¶0026).
Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods / devices lack an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mental activity, e.g., cipher algorithm.
Dependent claims 2-7 have been analyzed to determine if they recite any element or action which results in integrating the model into a practical application however, dependent claims are rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection of the independent claims because the claims merely recite performing homomorphic encryption without integrating the model into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a true-random number generator (TRNG) configured to”,
“control logic configured to” and
“the controller configured to” in claim 1,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-7 inherit these deficiencies.
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 1-7 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.
“a true-random number generator (TRNG) configured to”,
“control logic configured to” and
“the controller configured to” in claim 1
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-7 inherit these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Poulard et al., (US20240031143A1).
Regarding claim 1, Poulard discloses:
A system (Figure 1) configured to encrypt vehicle communication (see [0014-0015]), comprising:
a hardware extension (Figure 1; [0065] The secure enclave 120 may also be implemented in the form of logic circuitry including a memory 122 for the keys stored therein) including:
a true-random number generator configured to output a true-random number (Figure 2, 240; Figure 1, 120; [0010] As examples, the above-described function may be a random code generation function applied on the provided key value to generate the authentication tag, and the logic circuit may be configured to transition to a data-set protection mode before generating the authentication tag as a function of the provided key value);
a random-access memory configured to store the true-random number as a one-time password (i.e., a proof of authenticity in a form of a cryptographic authentication tag) (Table 1; Fig. 2; Step 240; [0069] The next step at 240 is to generate a random key K (e.g., 128-bit) that will serve as the CMAC key. The random key is generated using a function CMD_RND (as in the SHE specification) and temporarily stored in RAM) and a counter value received from a counter (Figure 1,114; [0064] The logic circuitry 110 includes a memory (e.g., NVM within 110 but not shown separately) for storing a data set and also includes a so-called “counter” block 114 which includes a special logic circuit configured to track an update version of the data set stored in the memory; Figure 2, 210); and
control logic configured to send the one-time password to an advanced encryption standard block cipher configured to encrypt the one-time password with the counter value to generate a signature (Figure 2, 250; paragraphs 45, 68; it has to be noted that 01 mentions the use of GMAC to compute the authentication tag which involves encrypting the counter value with AES); and a controller in communication with the hardware extension (paragraphs 4, 7), the controller configured to:
receive, from the AES block cipher, the signature (Figure 2, 250; [0069] The random key is generated using a function CMD_RND (as in the SHE specification) and temporarily stored in RAM. It will be used in both subsequent processes: the CMAC key update (at 245) in the SHE-capable secure enclave, and the CMAC generation (at 250));
store the signature at a memory associated with the controller (Figure 4, 470; [0077] Once K1 and K2 are available in RAM, they are saved in the memory as at 440 such as replacements of the previous values); and
increase the counter value at the counter to establish a second counter value (Figure 2, 220, [0068] As shown at 205 of FIG. 2, the binding process starts with an up-to-date data set while the counter (e.g., 114 of memory 110) has not yet been modified, and from block 205 flow proceeds in from block to block as indicated by the depicted reference numerals. At 210, the counter is retrieved and at 215 incremented by 1. For the first data set initialization, at 220 the counter is set to 1 or otherwise updated as depicted at 225. Once the counter is updated, at 230 the counter is saved to NVM along with the up-to-date data set).
Regarding claim 2, Poulard discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the AES block cipher is configured to encrypt the second counter value and a second one-time password to create a second signature (Figure 2, 240, 245; [0069] The next step at 240 is to generate a random key K (e.g., 128-bit) that will serve as the CMAC key. The random key is generated using a function CMD_RND (as in the SHE specification) and temporarily stored in RAM. It will be used in both subsequent processes: the CMAC key update (at 245) in the SHE-capable secure enclave, and the CMAC generation (at 250); [0071] If the counter was not initialized to 1, a first step shown at 330 is to retrieve the sub key values K1 and K2 that are used to respectively encrypt M2P and authenticate M3. For a first time initialization of the data set (i.e. counter=1), K1 and K2 are computed using KDF and the empty key value, wherein KDF is implemented using the SHE function CMD_ENC_ECB and the RAM_KEY).
Regarding claim 4, Poulard discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the signature is encrypted utilizing electronic codebook mode of the AES block cipher ([0058] teaches using electronic codebook (ECB) mode to encrypt and decrypt messages of variable).
Regarding claim 6, Poulard discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the counter is associated with a counter component of the controller and the counter component is not located on the hardware extension ([0064] According to the present disclosure, FIG. 1 illustrates, consistent with the above aspects, the binding of a data set with a SHE-capable-secure enclave by way of a system-level block circuit diagram 100. As part of an integrated circuit including an application-specific circuit 105, the flow diagram of FIG. 1 shows three other parts. The first part is logic circuitry 110 which includes an up-to-date data set to be used by the application-specific circuit 105. The logic circuitry 110 includes a memory (e.g., NVM within 110 but not shown separately) for storing a data set and also includes a so-called “counter” block 114 which includes a special logic circuit configured to track an update version of the data set stored in the memory).
Regarding claim 7, Poulard discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the counter is a monotonic counter ([0068] At 210, the counter is retrieved and at 215 incremented by 1. For the first data set initialization, at 220 the counter is set to 1 or otherwise updated as depicted at 225. Once the counter is updated, at 230 the counter is saved to NVM along with the up-to-date data set).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulard et al., (US20240031143A1) in view of NPL document titled “AUTOSAR - Specification of Secure Hardware Extensions” published 11/28/2019, hereinafter referred as NPL.
Regarding claim 3, Poulard fails to disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the TRNG and the random-access memory are components of an Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) Secure Hardware Extension compliant unit.
However, NPL discloses:
wherein the TRNG and the random-access memory are components of an Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) Secure Hardware Extension compliant unit (Page # 24-25, 4.5 Random number generation: SHE must include pseudo random number generator. The seed can be generated in two ways as described in Chapter 4.5.1 Note: Only one of the two described methods has to be implemented The random numbers may not be generated directly by a true random number generator; Also see section 4.5.1.2; Seed generation trough a true random number generator (TRNG); also see Figure 4.3 which gives an overview of all components implemented in SHE specifically random-access memory).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify circuit of Poulard and include Secure Hardware Element (SHE) which comprises of random-access memory and a true random number generator (TRNG), as disclosed by NPL.
The motivation to include Secure Hardware Element (SHE) comprising RAM and TRNG is to enhance the capability of Poulard circuit and provide for universal tamper and replay attack resistance to the software monotonic counter.
Regarding claim 5, Poulard fails to disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware extension is an Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) Secure Hardware Extension module.
However, NPL discloses:
wherein the TRNG and the random-access memory are components of an Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR) Secure Hardware Extension compliant unit (Page # 24-25, 4.5 Random number generation: SHE must include pseudo random number generator. The seed can be generated in two ways as described in Chapter 4.5.1 Note: Only one of the two described methods has to be implemented The random numbers may not be generated directly by a true random number generator; Also see section 4.5.1.2; Seed generation trough a true random number generator (TRNG); also see Figure 4.3 which gives an overview of all components implemented in SHE specifically random-access memory).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify circuit of Poulard and include Secure Hardware Element (SHE) which comprises of random-access memory and a true random number generator (TRNG), as disclosed by NPL.
The motivation to include Secure Hardware Element (SHE) comprising RAM and TRNG is to enhance the capability of Poulard circuit and provide for universal tamper and replay attack resistance to the software monotonic counter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491