DETAILED ACTION
1. Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-20. Claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 3/09/2026 moot in view of grounds of new rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub.No.: US 2018/0004444 A1 to MURRAY et al(hereafter referenced as Murray) in view of Pub.No.: US 2022/0158855 A1 to Wentz
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses “a device, comprising: physical unclonable function (PUF) circuitry(PUF circuitry [Fig.2]) configured to produce a PUF output in response to an input (the PUF may be a portion of a static random access memory (SRAM), and wherein the PUF response may be output from the portion of the SRAM [par.0017]) ; and random number generator (RNG) circuitry configured to output one or more random numbers(Random number generator (RNG) 38 is bi-directionally connected to bus 22 and may be a true random number generator (TRNG) [par.0019]) ; “wherein the PUF circuitry includes one or more components, and the RNG circuitry (RNG Circuitry [Fig.2/item 38]) includes at least one of the one or more components of the PUF circuitry(PUFF circuitry [Fig.2/item 28 and 30]) such that an alteration of the RNG circuitry alters the PUF output” (combine the new code word with recovered PUF response to create second activation code [Fig.6/item 98]).
Murray does not explicitly disclose “wherein the device is configured to determine whether the RNG circuitry is an untainted source of random numbers based on an output of the PUF circuitry”
However, Wentz in an analogous art discloses “wherein the device is configured to determine whether the RNG circuitry is an untainted source of random numbers based on an output of the PUF circuitry” (a remote device and / or secure computing module 112 may convert immediate output from PUF 120 into key in the form of a binary number . This may be performed , without limitation , using a fuzzy extractor , such as those used to convert slightly variable signals from biometric samples or the like predict ably into keys by having certain variation tolerances in the binary encoding process . Private key extraction may utilize additional corrective measures , including as a nonlimiting example machine learning , neural networks , convolutional neural networks and the like , or other approaches to provide error correction over the operating temperature range of the device , to ensure consistency in key extraction . Private key generation may alternatively or additionally incorporate true random number generator ( s ) ( TRNGs ) , pseudorandom number generators ( PRNGs ) and related devices Wentz[par.0075])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Murray’s Physically Unclonable Function circuit with Wentz’s certificate authority process comprising a PUF circuitry in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Murray teaches a Physically unclonable function, Wentz additionally discloses a PUF circuit , and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry include one or more components of active transistor circuitry”( a current electrode is a source or drain and a control electrode is a gate of a metal - oxide semiconductor ( MOS ) transistor . Other transistor types may be used in other embodiments Murray[par.0026]).
Regarding claim 5 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the PUF circuitry includes active transistor PUF circuitry that is separate from the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry” ( a current electrode is a source or drain and a control electrode is a gate of a metal - oxide semiconductor ( MOS ) transistor . Other transistor types may be used in other embodiments Murray[par.0026]).
Regarding claim 6 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the RNG circuitry includes active transistor RNG circuitry that is separate from the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry”(using threshold voltage PUFs : these may be constructed by connecting identically designed transistors in an addressable array may driving resistive loads ; in operation , because of random silicon manufacturing variations , the transistor threshold voltages and current through the load may be random . Similarly , mixed - signal PUFs may include inverter gain PUFs , which may be based on the variable gain of equally designed inverters Wentz[par.0035]).
Regarding claim 7 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry include reconfigurable active transistor circuitry. (using threshold voltage PUFs : these may be constructed by connecting identically designed transistors in an addressable array may driving resistive loads ; in operation , because of random silicon manufacturing variations , the transistor threshold voltages and current through the load may be random . Similarly , mixed - signal PUFs may include inverter gain PUFs , which may be based on the variable gain of equally designed inverters Wentz[par.0035]).
Regarding claim 8 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein noise inherent to the PUF circuitry is used as a seed for the RNG circuitry.” (mixed - signal PUFs may include inverter gain PUFs , which may be based on the variable gain of equally designed inverters Wentz[par.0035]).
Regarding claim 9 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the device is configured to receive a PUF challenge and generate the output of the PUF circuitry in response to the PUF challenge”(private key and / or signing process may be produced using a genuinely random process during manufacturing , and / or unique object ( UNO ) fingerprint , and / or a physically unclonable function (PUF), or any other disorder - based security primitive , defined as a function that creates challenge responses from a physical circuit that depend on unique features of that circuit Wentz[pzr.0028])
Regarding claim 10 in view of claim 9, the references combined disclose “wherein the device is further configured to: determine whether the output of the PUF circuitry matches a valid PUF response for the PUF challenge” ; in response to a determination that the output of the PUF circuitry matches a valid PUF response for the PUF challenge, verify that the RNG circuitry is an untainted source of random numbers; and in response to a determination that the output of the PUF circuitry does not match a valid PUF response for the PUF challenge, reject the RNG circuitry as an untainted source of random numbers” (private key and / or signing process may be produced using a genuinely random process during manufacturing , and / or unique object ( UNO ) fingerprint , and / or a physically unclonable function (PUF), or any other disorder - based security primitive , defined as a function that creates challenge responses from a physical circuit that depend on unique features of that circuit Wentz[pzr.0028])
Regarding claim 11 in view of claim 1, the references combined disclose “wherein the PUF circuitry and/or the RNG circuitry is implemented using only active transistor circuitry” ( a current electrode is a source or drain and a control electrode is a gate of a metal - oxide semiconductor ( MOS ) transistor . Other transistor types may be used in other embodiments Murray[par.0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Murray discloses “ A node, comprising: a physical unclonable function (PUF) circuit (PUF circuitry [Fig.2]) including a plurality of components configured to produce a PUF output in response to an input(the PUF may be a portion of a static random access memory (SRAM), and wherein the PUF response may be output from the portion of the SRAM [par.0017]); “and a random number generator (RNG) circuit configured to output one or more random numbers” (Random number generator (RNG) 38 is bi-directionally connected to bus 22 and may be a true random number generator (TRNG) [par.0019]), wherein the RNG circuit (RNG circuit [Fig.2/item 38]) includes at least one of the plurality of components of the PUF circuit (PUF Circuit [Fig.2/item 28 and 30]) such that an alteration of the RNG circuit alters the PUF output” (combine the new codeword with recovered PUF response to create second activation code [Fig.6/item 98]).
Murray does not explicitly disclose “one or more additional circuits configured to utilize the PUF output and/or the one or more random numbers for one or more cryptographic processes; wherein the node is configured to determine whether the RNG circuit is an untainted source of random numbers based on an output of the PUF circuit”
However, Wentz in an analogous art discloses “one or more additional circuits configured to utilize the PUF output and/or the one or more random numbers for one or more cryptographic processes; wherein the device is configured to determine whether the RNG circuitry is an untainted source of random numbers based on an output of the PUF circuitry” (a remote device and / or secure computing module 112 may convert immediate output from PUF 120 into key in the form of a binary number . This may be performed , without limitation , using a fuzzy extractor , such as those used to convert slightly variable signals from biometric samples or the like predict ably into keys by having certain variation tolerances in the binary encoding process . Private key extraction may utilize additional corrective measures , including as a nonlimiting example machine learning , neural networks , convolutional neural networks and the like , or other approaches to provide error correction over the operating temperature range of the device , to ensure consistency in key extraction . Private key generation may alternatively or additionally incorporate true random number generator ( s ) ( TRNGs ) , pseudorandom number generators ( PRNGs ) and related devices Wentz[par.0075])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Murray’s Physically Unclonable Function circuit with Wentz’s certificate authority process comprising a PUF circuitry in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Murray teaches a Physically unclonable function, Wentz additionally discloses a PUF circuit , and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 14 in view of claim 12, the references combined disclose “wherein the PUF circuit includes active transistor PUF circuitry that is separate from the one or more components shared by the PUF circuit and the RNG circuit; and/or wherein the RNG circuit includes active transistor RNG circuitry that is separate from the one or more components shared by the PUF circuit and the RNG circuit” ( a current electrode is a source or drain and a control electrode is a gate of a metal - oxide semiconductor ( MOS ) transistor . Other transistor types may be used in other embodiments Murray[par.0026]).
Regarding claim 15 in view of claim 12, the references combined disclose “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuit and the RNG circuit include reconfigurable active transistor circuitry” (using threshold voltage PUFs : these may be constructed by connecting identically designed transistors in an addressable array may driving resistive loads ; in operation , because of random silicon manufacturing variations , the transistor threshold voltages and current through the load may be random . Similarly , mixed - signal PUFs may include inverter gain PUFs , which may be based on the variable gain of equally designed inverters Wentz[par.0035]).
Regarding claim 16 in view of claim 12, the references combined disclose “wherein the node is configured to receive a PUF challenge and generate the output of the PUF circuit in response to the PUF challenge” (private key and / or signing process may be produced using a genuinely random process during manufacturing , and / or unique object ( UNO ) fingerprint , and / or a physically unclonable function (PUF), or any other disorder - based security primitive , defined as a function that creates challenge responses from a physical circuit that depend on unique features of that circuit Wentz[pzr.0028])
Regarding claim 17 in view of claim 16, the references combined disclose “wherein the node is further configured to: determine whether the output of the PUF circuit matches a valid PUF response for the PUF challenge;
in response to a determination that the output of the PUF circuit matches a valid PUF response for the PUF challenge, verify that the RNG circuit is an untainted source of random numbers; and in response to a determination that the output of the PUF circuit does not match a valid PUF response for the PUF challenge, reject the RNG circuit as an untainted source of random numbers” (private key and / or signing process may be produced using a genuinely random process during manufacturing , and / or unique object ( UNO ) fingerprint , and / or a physically unclonable function (PUF), or any other disorder - based security primitive , defined as a function that creates challenge responses from a physical circuit that depend on unique features of that circuit Wentz[pzr.0028])
Regarding claim 18, Wentz discloses “a method, comprising: receiving a physical unclonable function (PUF) challenge at a device including PUF circuitry including a plurality of components and random number generator (RNG) circuitry” (the PUF response is combined with the first activation code to reproduce a codeword [par.0013]) “determining, with the PUF circuitry of the device, a PUF response output in response to the PUF challenge; determining whether the PUF response output matches a valid PUF response; in response to a determination that the PUF response output matches a valid PUF response, validating one or more hardware resources for the RNG circuitry” (a second secret string is generated using a random number generator ( RNG ) . The second secret string is encoded to produce a codeword . The codeword is combined with the recovered PUF response to create a second activation code [par.0014] ; and in response to a determination that the PUF response output does not match a valid PUF response, rejecting one or more hardware resources for the RNG circuitry” (disclosed systems and methods verify remote devices and generate authorization tokens granting and / or denying remote devices network access , from systems utilizing trusted hardware including e.g. secure proof [par.0014]).
Wentz does not explicitly disclose “wherein one or more components of the RNG circuitry is one of the plurality of components of the PUF circuitry such that an alteration of the RNG circuitry alters the PUF output;”
However, Murray in an analogous art discloses “wherein one or more components of the RNG circuitry is one of the plurality of components of the PUF circuitry (i.e. RNG circuit try interconnected with PUF NVM and PUF SRAM Murray[Fig.2]) such that an alteration of the RNG circuitry alters the PUF output;”
(the PUF response is combined with the first activation code to reproduce a codeword Murray[par.0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Murray’s Physically Unclonable Function circuit with Wentz’s certificate authority process comprising a PUF circuitry in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Murray teaches a Physically unclonable function, Wentz additionally discloses a PUF circuit , and both are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 19 in view of claim 18, the references combined disclose “further comprising using the PUF response output and/or one or more random numbers generated by one or more validated hardware resources for the RNG circuitry for one or more cryptographic processes” (Private key generation may additionally incorporate true random number generator ( s ) ( TRNGs ) , pseudorandom number generators ( PRNGs ) and related devices . Where an element being “ signed by PUF ” and / or “ generated by a PUF , ” as used herein , may include any PUF - backed and / or derived key generation or the like as described herein Wentz[par.0028])
Regarding claim 20 in view of claim 18, the references combined disclose “wherein determining whether the PUF response output matches a valid PUF response includes determining whether the PUF response output is within a threshold range of values” (a plurality of verifying nodes 132 may combine to generate an authorization token using threshold cryptography Wentz[par.0068]).
Claims 3-4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub.No.: US 2018/0004444 A1 to MURRAY et al(hereafter referenced as Murray) in view of Pub.No.: US 2022/0158855 A1 to Wentz, in further view of Pub.No.: US 2023/0187371 A1 to Parker et al(hereafter referenced as Parker).
Regarding claim 3 in view of claim 1, neither Murray nor Wentz explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry include one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) structures.”
However, Parker in an analogous art discloses “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry include one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) structures.”(PUF system enclosed with micro electrical system MEM Parker[Fig.1/item 508]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Murrays Physically unclonable function circuitry and Wentz Puff circuitry with Parkers PUF system that additionally incorporates a MEM system in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Murray discloses a PUF system, Wentz discloses a PUFF system which authenticates, Parker teaches a PUFF system along with a MEM system, and all are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4 in view of claim 1, neither Murray nor Wentz explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry include one or more components of active transistor circuitry and one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) structures.”
However, Parker in an analogous art discloses “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuitry and the RNG circuitry include one or more components of active transistor circuitry and one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) structures”(PUF system enclosed with micro electrical system MEM Parker[Fig.1/item 508]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Murrays Physically unclonable function circuitry and Wentz Puff circuitry with Parkers PUF system that additionally incorporates a MEM system in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Murray discloses a PUF system, Wentz discloses a PUFF system which authenticates, Parker teaches a PUFF system along with a MEM system, and all are from the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 13 in view of claim 12 neither Murray nor Wentz explicitly disclose “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuit and the RNG circuit include one or more components of active transistor circuitry and/or one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) structures”
However, Parker in an analogous art discloses “wherein the one or more components shared by the PUF circuit and the RNG circuit include one or more components of active transistor circuitry and/or one or more micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) structures”(PUF system enclosed with micro electrical system MEM Parker[Fig.1/item 508]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Murrays Physically unclonable function circuitry and Wentz Puff circuitry with Parkers PUF system that additionally incorporates a MEM system in order to provide additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because Murray discloses a PUF system, Wentz discloses a PUFF system which authenticates, Parker teaches a PUFF system along with a MEM system, and all are from the same field of endeavor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571) 272-6798. 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.
/MICHAEL D ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights