DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to Applicant’s reply filed on 03/17/2026, Applicant’s amendments to claims have been entered and respective arguments carefully considered and responded in the following. Claims 1-22 are presented for examination in this Office Action, with Claims 1, 11, 17, and 20 being in independent form.
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 .
Examiner's Instructions for filing Response to this Office Action
When the Applicant submits amendments regarding to the claims in response the Office Action, the Examiner would like Applicant to provide a clean copy of the claims to facilitate the prosecution which otherwise requires extra time in editing the marked-up claims from OCR.
Please submit two sets of claims:
Set #1 as in a typical filing which includes indicators for the status of claim and all marked amendments to the claims; and
Set #2 as an appendix to the Arguments/Remarks for a clean version of the claims which has all the markups removed for entry by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments and remarks filed by the Applicant on 03/17/2026, have been carefully considered and are responded in the following.
In response to the Applicant arguments, page(s) 7, regarding claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the amendments have obliviated the issues. Therefore, there are on longer 112(f) claim interpretations in the claims.
In response to the Applicant arguments, page(s) 7-8, regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of each reciting a limitation that lacks sufficient antecedent basis, the amendments have partially resolved the issues. It is noted that the amendments caused further 112(b) issues.
Applicant’s arguments, page(s) 8-12 of the Remarks, with regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered carefully.
Applicant argues that Chittamuru, Ryckman, and Kantor, individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element of applicant's independent claims 1, 11, 17, and 20. In particular, Applicant argues that Chittamuru (aka, Chit, PG-PUB US 20200125716 A1) only discloses generating an encryption key using process variation profiles of destination microring resonators (Chittamuru [0084]) and that the encryption key is used to encrypt data using an XOR operation (Chittamuru [0088]). Chittamuru does not teach or suggest using a microring resonator to passively encrypt data.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because, Chit clearly discloses at par. 0013-0015, 0034, 0084-0088, 0137-0139: encryption of data in photonic links according to an illustrative embodiment. In FIG. 12. Chit’s microring resonator is used for generating the encryption key; see par. 0013-0015 and 0128-0130. Chit discloses a method of providing hardware-circuit-level encryption for inter-core communication of photonic communication devices such as photonic network-on-chip devices; the Abstract. Chit evidently teaches passively encrypting data, in particular, using the 64-bit encryption key to encrypt data in photonic links, including data transmitted over at least one gateway interface comprising at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g. photonic waveguide) coupled between a pair of photonic communication devices (e.g., photonic network-on-chip devices); see par. 0088-0089. At par. 0013-0015, Chit discloses a process-variation profile of a microring resonator associated with a photonic communication device of the pair wherein the resonator plays a key role in generating (e.g., by a processor executing instructions or by logic circuitries) the encryption key for the at least one gateway interface [encrypting] data traffic. Evidently, Chit teaches or at least suggest using a microring resonator to passively encrypt data. Applicant’s arguments are not pursuasive
It is noted that, the Applicant has amended the four base claims with variations slightly different from each other.
Claim 1 is directed to: an apparatus having a passive photonic physically unclonable functionality for securing an automotive control area network (CAN), comprising:
a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN, wherein the network node includes:
a set of microring resonators (MRs), at least one of the MRs having a fabrication process variation (FPV) that is unique from MRs of other nodes in the automotive CAN, wherein the first network node is configured to pass an optical signal through the set of MRs thereby encrypting the optical signal via the FPV before transmission via the photonic interconnection.
It is understood that Fabrication process variation (FPV) causes amplitude and/or wavelength shifts in data packets sent through waveguides in photonic communication systems. And as explained during the interview, the claimed invention is for encrypting data packets between automotive network nodes using optical characteristics such as wavelength shifts, rather than the traditional encryption by automotive CAN which uses the microcontroller to encrypt data packets. In this regard, claim 1 is in a broader scope describing only using a network node to pass an optical signal through a set of MRs for encrypting the optical signal via the FPV, as opposed to encrypting data packets using the amplitude and/or wavelength shifts. Applicant fails to point out the encrypting step is for encrypting data traffic between network nodes wherein the encrypting is outside the micro-controller. It is also noted that in photonic encryption process using the Fabrication process variation (FPV) that causes amplitude and/or wavelength shifts in data packets requires a LUT (i.e., a look up table) with the unique node IDs and corresponding (μ, σ) of the encryption MR bank according to the Specification, par. 0038-0041. A look up table (LUT) is essential as it includes at least one node identifier and containing information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes to decrypt data packets; see the Specification, par. 0015 and 0021. Otherwise, the decryption cannot be performed. As discussed above, claim 1 is still very broad.
Similar to claim 1, base claims 11, 17, and 20 are too broad to capture the essence of the claimed invention. The Examiner suggests using consistent language for all independent claims and further amendments to each to include the data traffic encryption distinctive from the traditional automotive CAN to advance the prosecution.
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 1-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are determined by the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites “the first network node” in the wherein clause (i.e., “wherein the first network node is configured to pass an optical signal through the set of MRs thereby encrypting the optical signal via the FPV …”) without sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites “the first network node” in the directing step without sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “the first network node” in the directing step without sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 11 and 17 each recite “the FPV” unclearly or lacking sufficient antecedent basis because the claims each define at least one fabrication process variation (FPV), which suggests that one or more FPVs exist in the claims. As such, the recitation of a singular FPV is unclearly or lacking sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 also recite “the FPV” unclearly or lacking sufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned reason in claim 17.
Claim 20 recites two instances of “a node identifier” unclearly or lacking sufficient antecedent basis. It is noted that the first instance of “a node identifier” is said corresponding to another network node and being received by the network node when receiving a data packet via the photonic interconnect. As such, it appears that the first instance of “a node identifier” is found from the received data packet and thus the same as the node identifier of the received data packet. As such, the second instance of “a node identifier” should be linked to the first instance of “node identifier.”
Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because they depend from the rejected base claims 1, 11, 17, and 20, respectively.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chittamuru (US 20200125716 A1; hereinafter “Chit”) in view of Kantor (US 20160366156 A1), and further in view of Ryckman (US 20220069990 A1) and Chang (US 6160651 A).
As per claim 1, Chit teaches an apparatus having a passive photonic physically unclonable functionality for securing an automotive control area network (CAN) (Chit, par.0081-0084, 0088-0090, and 0124: generate unclonable keys that are used for encrypting data; the data encryption-decryption process using detector micro-ring resonators; the encryption key for transmission over the photonic signal transmission medium. In some embodiments, the process variation profile associated with the detector microring-resonator of the destination gateway-interface is used to form the encryption key to encrypt data), comprising:
a set of microring resonators (MRs), at least one of the MRs having a fabrication process variation (FPV) that is unique from MRs of other nodes [in the automotive CAN] (Chit, par. 0013-0015, 0034, 0084-0088, 0137-0139: encryption of data in photonic links according to an illustrative embodiment. In FIG. 12, wherein a microring resonator is used … for generating the encryption key; see par. 0013-0015 and 0128-0130), wherein the first network node is configured to pass an optical signal through the set of MRs thereby encrypting the optical signal via the FPV before transmission via the photonic interconnection (Chit, par. 0137-0139: encryption of data in photonic links according to an illustrative embodiment. In FIG. 12, wherein a microring resonator is used; par. 0128-0130; Chit discloses a circuit-level process-variation-based encryption system 500 wherein the process-variation [produces] a unique encryption key that is unique from MRs of other devices; see par. 0084-0087 and 0125; see par. 0073-0079: FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 6 for passing data-carrying photonic signal (e.g., photonic wavelength)).
However, Chit does not explicitly disclose a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
In a related art, Kantor teaches:
a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN (Kantor teaches securing an automotive powertrain control area network and as the Title describes: Protection of Communication on a Vehicular Network Via a Remote Security Service; par. 0003-0004: the engine control unit; par. 0084-0085: the Vehicular Border Security Module 120 and remote security server 125), wherein the network node includes encryption keys and electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic (par. 0085-0086 and 0105):
Kantor and Chit analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving secured data transmission as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Chit system with Kantor’s teachings to include optically generated encryption key in the automotive area network. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with Kantor’s encryption-decryption processes with automotives.
However, Chit does not explicitly disclose the node identifier containing information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes to decrypt data packets. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Ryckman teaches:
at least one node identifier containing information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes to decrypt data packets (Ryckman, FIG. 5C shows a table of device identifications that allows each PUF will be distinguishable; Ryckman also discloses the inter-chip variations of the “clonable” design as information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes; par. 0121. It is noted that Ryckman’s technique applies to the prospect for photonic security systems-on-a-chip or optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links wherein the [decrypted] identification information is used to decide whether they are authentic or fake; par. 0075-0077. See also par. 0117-0121 for leveraging the manufacturing process variations for effectiveness of our integrated photonic PUF).
Ryckman is analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify Chit-Kantor system with Ryckman’s teachings of the use of FPV.
While Ryckman discusses optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links (par. 0075), Ryckman is not entirely clear about encrypting the optical signal via the FPV.
In a related art, Chang teaches: perform encryption of the electronic data in the optical layer are the following: (i) chaotic optical encryption; (ii) quantum optical encryption; and (iii) optical spread spectrum encryption…. as the optical encryption method. These are single wavelength chaotic synchronous fiber lasing systems that use amplitude or frequency modulation to introduce a "chaotic state" in the network. The information transmitted through the network is encoded onto chaos at the transmitter side and decoded at the receiver side. This is accomplished by using a synchronized "chaotic state" at the receiving end in order to "de-encrypt" the original optical signal (col. 2, lines 24-54) and writes optical layer security features to the header of each packet (col. 5, lines 27-60).
Chang is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify the Chit-Kantor-Ryckman system with Chang’s teachings of encrypting the optical signal implemented on optical layer or via a single (wavelength) channel.
As per claim 2, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein a source of the FPV is an optical-lithography process imperfection created when forming the MR (Chit, par. 0013-0015: a microring resonator associated with a photonic communication device of the pair; par. 0021-0023: photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide)).
As per claim 3, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the MR has a waveguide (Chit, par. 0021 and 0029: a microring resonator (MR)… the MR-based switch … including the at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide)) and
wherein the FPV is a variation in a thickness of the waveguide (Ryckman, par. 0095-0096: waveguides with nominal device thickness 220 nm).
As per claim 4, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the MR has a waveguide (Chit, par. 0021 and 0029: a microring resonator (MR)… the MR-based switch … including the at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide)) and
wherein the FPV is a variation in a line width of the waveguide (Ryckman, par. 0089: waveguide width; specifically, the local nanoscale variations in waveguide width and surface roughness; par. 0095: width modulated (500 nm+/−20 nm) single-mode Si waveguides with nominal device thickness 220 nm cladded by SiO.sub.2.).
As per claim 5, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the MR has a waveguide (Chit, par. 0021 and 0029: a microring resonator (MR)… the MR-based switch … including the at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide)) and
wherein the FPV is a variation in an edge roughness of the waveguide (Ryckman, par. 0097 and 0127: the waveguides have a finite propagation loss (˜2.4 dB/cm) owing to sidewall roughness and bend loss; par. 0122: surface roughness).
As per claim 6, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the MR has a waveguide (Chit, par. 0021 and 0029: a microring resonator (MR)… the MR-based switch … including the at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide)) and
wherein the FPV is a variation in an inner side wall slope of the waveguide (Ryckman, par. 0127: the spiral waveguide is steeper than that of straight waveguide; the slope of power loss for spiral waveguide is steeper than that of straight waveguide owing to a combination of radiative and scattering loss).
As per claim 9, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the FPV causes a shift in a wavelength of the encrypted data packets (Chit, par. 0071-0072, 0076, and 0085: shift of wavelength connected to the microring-resonators from their resonance wavelengths).
As per claim 11, Chit teaches a method for securing an automotive control area network (CAN) by using a passive photonic physically unclonable functionality, comprising:
directing a data packet through a microring resonator (MR) of the first network node thereby changing a physical characteristic of the data packet (Chit, par. 0119-0120: the number of packets that were transferred through the PVSC encryption scheme; waveguides and double mirroring resonators [causes] Increase in average packet latency and signal loss), wherein the MR has at least one fabrication process variation (FPV) that is unique from MRs of other nodes and wherein the [FPV] passively changes the physical characteristic of the data packet to encrypt the data packet (Chit, par. 0137-0139: encryption of data in photonic links according to an illustrative embodiment. In FIG. 12, wherein a microring resonator is used; par. 0128-0130; Chit discloses a circuit-level process-variation-based encryption system 500 wherein the process-variation [produces] a unique encryption key that is unique from MRs of other devices; see par. 0084-0087 and 0125);
However, Chit does not explicitly disclose a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
In a related art, Kantor teaches:
transmitting the encrypted data packet through a photonic interconnection to the automotive CAN and to a second network node (Kantor teaches securing an automotive powertrain control area network and as the Title describes: Protection of Communication on a Vehicular Network Via a Remote Security Service; par. 0003-0004: the engine control unit; par. 0084-0085: the Vehicular Border Security Module 120 and remote security server 125), wherein the network node includes encryption keys and electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic (par. 0085-0086 and 0105):
Kantor and Chit analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving secured data transmission as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Chit system with Kantor’s teachings to include optically generated encryption key in the automotive area network. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with Kantor’s encryption-decryption processes with automotives.
As discussed above, Chit and Kantor are not clear about the use of FPV of one of the network nodes. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Ryckman teaches:
at least one node identifier containing information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes to decrypt data packets (Ryckman, FIG. 5C shows a table of device identifications that allows each PUF will be distinguishable; Ryckman also discloses the inter-chip variations of the “clonable” design as information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes; par. 0121. It is noted that Ryckman’s technique applies to the prospect for photonic security systems-on-a-chip or optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links wherein the [decrypted] identification information is used to decide whether they are authentic or fake; par. 0075-0077. See also par. 0117-0121 for leveraging the manufacturing process variations for effectiveness of our integrated photonic PUF).
Ryckman is analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify Chit-Kantor system with Ryckman’s teachings of the use of FPV.
While Ryckman discusses optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links (par. 0075), Ryckman is not entirely clear about encrypting the optical signal via the FPV.
In a related art, Chang teaches: perform encryption of the electronic data in the optical layer are the following: (i) chaotic optical encryption; (ii) quantum optical encryption; and (iii) optical spread spectrum encryption…. as the optical encryption method. These are single wavelength chaotic synchronous fiber lasing systems that use amplitude or frequency modulation to introduce a "chaotic state" in the network. The information transmitted through the network is encoded onto chaos at the transmitter side and decoded at the receiver side. This is accomplished by using a synchronized "chaotic state" at the receiving end in order to "de-encrypt" the original optical signal (col. 2, lines 24-54) and writes optical layer security features to the header of each packet (col. 5, lines 27-60).
Chang is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify the Chit-Kantor-Ryckman system with Chang’s teachings of encrypting the optical signal implemented on optical layer or via a single (wavelength) channel.
As per claim 12, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the method of claim 11, wherein the data packet includes a portion that is actively encrypted (Chit, par. 0137-0139: encryption of data in photonic links according to an illustrative embodiment, which suggests a portion that is actively encrypted wherein a micro-ring resonator is used; See FIG. 12,).
As per claim 13, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the method of claim 11, wherein the data packet includes a portion that is actively encrypted and wherein the active encryption is accomplished by directing the data packet through a tunable MR (Chit, par. 0013-0015, 0021-0022, 0048, and 0081-0084: a microring resonator associated with a photonic communication device; par. 0101 and 0112: waveguides polarization. Furthermore, at least two photonic signal transmission medium including the at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide) and the second photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., reservation waveguide). Chit discloses using waveguide, which makes the MR tunable). It is noted that Ryckman also discloses using a tunable laser under TE polarization to cause waveguides polarization; see par. 0099 and 0125.
As per claim 14, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving the encrypted data packet at the second network node (Chit, par. 0062-0064: receive data in the optical domain on all of the utilized carrier wavelengths. Each gateway interface, in some embodiments, has a bank of modulator microring-resonators (i.e., modulator bank)) and the method includes decrypting the encrypted data packet with the tunable MR (Chit, par. 0079-0081: provide hardware-circuit-level encryption for inter-core communication of photonic communication devices; par. 0086-0088: encrypt data in photonic links and decryption).
As per claim 15, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving the encrypted data packet at the second network node, wherein the second network node stores a look up table (LUT) having a first node identifier and the method includes identifying a second node identifier in the encrypted data packet and comparing the first node identifier and second node identifier to determine if they are the same (Ryckman, FIG. 5C shows a table of device identifications that allows each PUF will be distinguishable; Ryckman also discloses the inter-chip variations of the “clonable” design as information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes).
As per claim 16, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the method of claim 15, further comprising accessing decryption information from the LUT that is associated with the first node identifier in response to the first node identifier and second node identifier being the same (Ryckman, FIG. 5C shows a table of device identifications that allows each PUF will be distinguishable; Ryckman also discloses the inter-chip variations of the “clonable” design as information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes. Ryckman uses the same waveguide to transmit both the communication metadata and actual data as well as the same gateway interface, suggesting that the nodes are the same type.).
As per claim 17, Chit teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having computer-readable instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
secure an automotive control area network (CAN) by using a passive photonic physically unclonable functionality (Chit, par. 0125-0126: To enhance security further, the unclonable key of photonic networks-on-chip is used for data encryption. Chit discloses a method is disclosed of securing a photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., photonic waveguides) in photonic communication (e.g., photonic networks-on-chip (PNoCs)) that couple pairs of photonic communication devices; par. 0011-0014);
direct a data packet through a microring resonator (MR) of the first network node (Chit, par. 0119-0120: the number of packets that were transferred through the PVSC encryption scheme; waveguides and double mirroring resonators [causes] Increase in average packet latency and signal loss)
However, Chit does not explicitly disclose a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
In a related art, Kantor teaches:
transmitting the encrypted data packet through a photonic interconnection to the automotive CAN and to a second network node (Kantor teaches securing an automotive powertrain control area network and as the Title describes: Protection of Communication on a Vehicular Network Via a Remote Security Service; par. 0003-0004: the engine control unit; par. 0084-0085: the Vehicular Border Security Module 120 and remote security server 125), wherein the network node includes encryption keys and electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic (par. 0085-0086 and 0105):
transmit the encrypted data packet through a photonic interconnection through the automotive CAN and to a second network node (Kantor teaches securing an automotive powertrain control area network and as the Title describes: Protection of Communication on a Vehicular Network Via a Remote Security Service; par. 0003-0004: the engine control unit; par. 0084-0085: the Vehicular Border Security Module 120 and remote security server 125), wherein the network node includes encryption keys and electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic (par. 0085-0086 and 0105).
Kantor and Chit analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving secured data transmission as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Chit system with Kantor’s teachings to include optically generated encryption key in the automotive area network. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with Kantor’s encryption-decryption processes with automotives.
As discussed above, Chit and Kantor are not clear about the use of FPV of one of the network nodes. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Ryckman teaches:
at least one node identifier containing information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes to decrypt data packets and thereby changing a physical characteristic of the data packet, wherein the MR has at least one fabrication process variation (FPV) that is unique from MRs of other nodes and wherein the FPV passively changes the physical characteristic of the data packet to encrypt the data packet (Ryckman, FIG. 5C shows a table of device identifications that allows each PUF will be distinguishable; Ryckman also discloses the inter-chip variations of the “clonable” design as information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes; par. 0121. It is noted that Ryckman’s technique applies to the prospect for photonic security systems-on-a-chip or optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links wherein the [decrypted] identification information is used to decide whether they are authentic or fake; par. 0075-0077. See also par. 0117-0121 for leveraging the manufacturing process variations for effectiveness of our integrated photonic PUF).
Ryckman is analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify Chit-Kantor system with Ryckman’s teachings of the use of FPV.
While Ryckman discusses optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links (par. 0075), Ryckman is not entirely clear about encrypting the optical signal via the FPV.
In a related art, Chang teaches: perform encryption of the electronic data in the optical layer are the following: (i) chaotic optical encryption; (ii) quantum optical encryption; and (iii) optical spread spectrum encryption…. as the optical encryption method. These are single wavelength chaotic synchronous fiber lasing systems that use amplitude or frequency modulation to introduce a "chaotic state" in the network. The information transmitted through the network is encoded onto chaos at the transmitter side and decoded at the receiver side. This is accomplished by using a synchronized "chaotic state" at the receiving end in order to "de-encrypt" the original optical signal (col. 2, lines 24-54) and writes optical layer security features to the header of each packet (col. 5, lines 27-60).
Chang is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify the Chit-Kantor-Ryckman system with Chang’s teachings of encrypting the optical signal implemented on optical layer or via a single (wavelength) channel.
As per claim 18, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the second network node stores decryption information about the passive changes made by the FPV (Chit, par. 0137-0139: encryption of data in photonic links wherein a microring resonator is used; par. 0128-0130; Chit discloses a circuit-level process-variation-based encryption system 500; see also par. 0084-0087).
As per claim 19, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the second network node stores decryption information about the changes made to the changeable physical characteristics of the data packet (Chit, par. 0119-0120: the number of packets that were transferred through the PVSC encryption scheme; waveguides and double mirroring resonators [causes] Increase in average packet latency and signal loss).
As per claim 20, Chit teaches an apparatus having a passive photonic physically unclonable functionality for securing an automotive control area network (CAN), comprising:
a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN (Chit, par. 0084, 0090, and 0124: generate unclonable keys that are used for encrypting data; the data encryption-decryption process using detector micro-ring resonators)
However, Chit does not explicitly disclose a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN. This aspect of the claim is identified as a difference.
In a related art, Kantor teaches:
a network node configured to be communicatively connected via a photonic interconnect to the automotive CAN (Kantor teaches securing an automotive powertrain control area network and as the Title describes: Protection of Communication on a Vehicular Network Via a Remote Security Service; par. 0003-0004: the engine control unit; par. 0084-0085: the Vehicular Border Security Module 120 and remote security server 125), wherein the network node includes encryption keys and electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic (par. 0085-0086 and 0105):
Kantor and Chit analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving secured data transmission as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Chit system with Kantor’s teachings to include optically generated encryption key in the automotive area network. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with Kantor’s encryption-decryption processes with automotives.
However, the combination of Chit and Kantor does not explicitly disclose a look up table (LUT) including at least one node identifier and containing information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes to decrypt data packets. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Ryckman teaches:
wherein the network node includes:
a processor configured to, in response to the network node receiving a data packet via the photonic interconnect, compare a node identifier of the received data packet to the node identifier stored in the LUT and, in response to the two node identifiers matching, decrypt the data packet using the information about the FPV stored in the LUT ((Ryckman, FIG. 5C shows a table of device identifications that allows each PUF will be distinguishable; Ryckman also discloses the inter-chip variations of the “clonable” design as information about at least one FPV of one of the network nodes; par. 0121. It is noted that Ryckman’s technique applies to the prospect for photonic security systems-on-a-chip or optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links wherein the [decrypted] identification information is used to decide whether they are authentic or fake; par. 0075-0077. See also par. 0117-0121 for leveraging the manufacturing process variations for effectiveness of our integrated photonic PUF)).
Ryckman is analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify Chit-Kantor system with Ryckman’s teachings of the use of FPV.
While Ryckman discusses optical hardware-enabled encryption of communication links (par. 0075), Ryckman is not entirely clear about encrypting the optical signal via the FPV.
In a related art, Chang teaches: perform encryption of the electronic data in the optical layer are the following: (i) chaotic optical encryption; (ii) quantum optical encryption; and (iii) optical spread spectrum encryption…. as the optical encryption method. These are single wavelength chaotic synchronous fiber lasing systems that use amplitude or frequency modulation to introduce a "chaotic state" in the network. The information transmitted through the network is encoded onto chaos at the transmitter side and decoded at the receiver side. This is accomplished by using a synchronized "chaotic state" at the receiving end in order to "de-encrypt" the original optical signal (col. 2, lines 24-54) and writes optical layer security features to the header of each packet (col. 5, lines 27-60).
Chang is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor in improving optics-enabled hardware for information security, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine them and to modify the Chit-Kantor-Ryckman system with Chang’s teachings of encrypting the optical signal implemented on optical layer or via a single (wavelength) channel.
As per claim 21 the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the system of claim 20, wherein the LUT includes decryption information about changes made to a changeable physical characteristics of the data packet (Ryckman, par. 0012-0013: thermal/environmental variations and ensures the device signature is stable and identifiable over a variety of environmental conditions; air holes or photonic crystals … would yield variable confinement factors; par. 0096: characteristics for QCIs with varying disorder).
As per claim 22, further comprising a tunable MR wherein the network node is configured to direct the data packet is through the tunable MR to decrypt the data packet. (Ryckman, par. 0015 and 0075: optical hardware enabled encryption of communication links; the [decrypted] identification information is used to decide whether they are authentic or fake; par. 0075-0077. See also par. 0117-0121 for leveraging the manufacturing process variations).
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chit, Kantor, Ryckman and Chang, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Brambilla (US 20030039459 A1; hereinafter “Bram”).
As per claim 7, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1, Chit also discloses wherein the MR has a waveguide (Chit, par. 0021 and 0029: a microring resonator (MR)… the MR-based switch … including the at least one photonic signal transmission medium (e.g., data waveguide)).
However, the above combined references do not explicitly disclose a variation in a dopant of the waveguide. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Bram teaches:
wherein the FPV is a variation in a dopant of the waveguide (Bram, par. 0021-0023: the variation on a dopant for increasing solubility of tin in the glass; a photosensitizing dopant; and a refractive index variation optically impressed on the photosensitive glass of the optical waveguide).
Bram is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Chit, Ryckman and Kantor with Bram’s teachings of “a dopant”. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the variation with the given waveguide.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chit, Kantor, Ryckman and Chang, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nichols (US 11874501 B1).
As per claim 8, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose that the FPV causes a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Nichols teaches:
wherein the FPV causes a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets (Nichols, col. 7, lines 33-45: a single wavelength represented as a wave packet 148; col. 8: lines 7-35: the desired range of weight amplitude (e.g., a range [−1,+1]). The phase of the output signal is measured for each weight value … of a wave packet 148).
Nichols is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Chit, Ryckman and Kantor with Nichols’ teachings of the FPV as a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the variations of FPV with a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets.
As per claim 10, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang as combined above teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Chit also discloses:
the FPV includes … a shift in a wavelength of the encrypted data packets (Chit, par. 0071-0072, 0076, and 0085: shift of wavelength connected to the microring-resonators from their resonance wavelengths).
However, the references of Chit, Kantor, Ryckman, and Chang do not explicitly disclose that the FPV causes a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Nichols teaches:
wherein the FPV includes a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets (Nichols, col. 7, lines 33-45: a single wavelength represented as a wave packet 148; col. 8: lines 7-35: the desired range of weight amplitude (e.g., a range [−1,+1]). The phase of the output signal is measured for each weight value … of a wave packet 148).
Nichols is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Chit, Ryckman and Kantor with Nichols’ teachings of the FPV as a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the variations of FPV with a variation in an amplitude of the encrypted data packets.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Don Zhao whose telephone number is (571)272-9953. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Colin can be reached on 571-272-3862. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Don G Zhao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
04/14/2026
Prosecution Insights