DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner is withdrawing the election requirement presented in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 29 December 2025 and is instead presented a revised Restriction Requirement as detailed below.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to an electronic communication apparatus, classified in H04L 9/3278.
II. Claims 10-18, drawn to an integrated circuit, classified in H04L 9/3218
III. Claims 19-20, drawn to an electronic communication network, classified in H04L 9/3271.The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the integrated circuit of Invention I not require the particulars of the IC of Invention II, particularly the microcontroller or bus. The subcombination has separate utility such as the ability to be used in any application where proof of origin data needs to be stored on a standalone device.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions III and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the network of Invention III does not require the specific application layer communication recited in Invention I. The subcombination has separate utility such as the ability to be used in a variety of network environments.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions III and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the network of Invention III not require the particulars of the IC of Invention II, particularly the microcontroller or bus. The subcombination has separate utility such as the ability to be used in any application where proof of origin data needs to be stored on a standalone device.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Each of the inventions are directed to different areas of classification, each of which would require a separate search and consideration. Additionally, each of the inventions would require separate and distinct keyword/text searches, as each invention requires particular elements that are not encompassed by the other inventions.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Matthew F. Clapper (Reg No. 62,216) on 10 April 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 limitations are:
“An application layer communication module including security logic configured to facilitate secure communications” of claim 1 (Disclosed as software running on hardware but without an instantiating algorithm or description)
Because this claim limitation is 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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 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 1-9 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.
Claim limitation “An application layer communication module including security logic configured to facilitate secure communications” of 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on this basis. Claims 2-9 are rejected as inheriting the deficiencies of Claim 1 and failing to correct.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the MPC cryptographic key " in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 1 does not recite an MPC cryptographic key”. Claim 8 would provide the necessary antecedent basis for this claim, so for the purposes of examination and applying art, Examiner is treating it as such. Claim 9 is rejected on this basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0032099 by Zheng et al.
As to claim 1, Zheng discloses an electronic communication apparatus, comprising:
a communication interface facilitating communication by way of a network with a remote device, the communication including application layer interaction between the communication interface and the remote device (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 -Page 5, Sec 44; Endpont node A communicates with Endpoint B, through the Coms interface 148A using Wifi, Ethernet or other protocols) ;
a processor for executing instructions pertaining to implementing the communication (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 -Page 5, Sec 44; processors);
a storage medium containing the instructions (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 -Page 5, Sec 44; NVM);
an internal communication bus coupled to the storage medium and to the processor facilitating data and command communication between the processor and the storage medium (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 -Page 5, Sec 44; “The enrollment and update controller 120 comprises a processor 122, a secure memory 124 and a communications interface 126. Endpoint node A 140A comprises a processor 142A, a PUF circuit 144A, a non-volatile memory 146A and a communications interface 148A. Endpoint node B comprises a processor 142B, a PUF circuit 144B, a non-volatile memory 146B and a communications interface 148B. The PUF circuit can be any weak or strong PUF, such as any of the delay-based PUFs (e.g., arbiter and ring-oscillator PUFs), memory PUF, sensor PUF, optical PUF, monostable PUF, via-PUF, etc. that has sufficient CRPs to support the number of endpoint nodes to be paired for direct secure mutual authentication. In addition, the PUF circuits 144A and 144B of the two endpoint nodes need not be the same. Both wire and wireless interfaces can be used for 148A and 148B as long as the endpoint nodes 140A and 140B use the same communication protocol supported by their enrolled network server. For example, WiFi and network socket for connection may be used. Long-distance communication interfaces like cellular network, Ethernet, short-distance wireless protocols like Bluetooth, RFID, NFC and wired communication like RS232, and USB are also possible. The high-speed chiplets require high bandwidth serial or parallel communication interface between dies or chips. The state-of-the-art serial interfaces are 112G USR/XSR (ultra-short reach, extra-short reach) and parallel interfaces are High Bandwidth Interconnect HBI (an offshoot of HBM) and OpenHBI, BoW (bunch of wires) and Intel Advanced Interface Bus (AIB).”);
an application layer communication module including security logic configured to facilitate secure communications between the remote device and the electronic communication apparatus as part of the application layer interaction (Zheng: Fig 1 and 5, Page 5, Sec 46; “The objective of the system 100 is to establish direct mutual authentication and direct secure communications thereafter between the endpoint nodes 140A and 140B by utilizing the on-the-fly key generation property of PUF.”); and an integrated circuit device containing proof of origin data that is unique or substantially unique to the integrated circuit device, wherein the integrated circuit device is coupled to the internal communication bus and provides the proof of origin data to the processor for transmission on the communication interface in response to a query received over the communication interface from the remote device (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 - Page 5, Sec 44; PUF circuit; “The enrollment and update controller 120 comprises a processor 122, a secure memory 124 and a communications interface 126. Endpoint node A 140A comprises a processor 142A, a PUF circuit 144A, a non-volatile memory 146A and a communications interface 148A. Endpoint node B comprises a processor 142B, a PUF circuit 144B, a non-volatile memory 146B and a communications interface 148B. The PUF circuit can be any weak or strong PUF, such as any of the delay-based PUFs (e.g., arbiter and ring-oscillator PUFs), memory PUF, sensor PUF, optical PUF, monostable PUF, via-PUF, etc. that has sufficient CRPs to support the number of endpoint nodes to be paired for direct secure mutual authentication. In addition, the PUF circuits 144A and 144B of the two endpoint nodes need not be the same. Both wire and wireless interfaces can be used for 148A and 148B as long as the endpoint nodes 140A and 140B use the same communication protocol supported by their enrolled network server. For example, WiFi and network socket for connection may be used. Long-distance communication interfaces like cellular network, Ethernet, short-distance wireless protocols like Bluetooth, RFID, NFC and wired communication like RS232, and USB are also possible. The high-speed chiplets require high bandwidth serial or parallel communication interface between dies or chips. The state-of-the-art serial interfaces are 112G USR/XSR (ultra-short reach, extra-short reach) and parallel interfaces are High Bandwidth Interconnect HBI (an offshoot of HBM) and OpenHBI, BoW (bunch of wires) and Intel Advanced Interface Bus (AIB).”).
As to claim 2, Zheng further discloses wherein the processor utilizes the proof of origin data in conjunction with executing the security logic of the application layer communication module for identifying the electronic communication apparatus with the remote device and for securing the application layer interaction of the communication (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 - Page 5, Sec 44; PUF circuit; “The enrollment and update controller 120 comprises a processor 122, a secure memory 124 and a communications interface 126. Endpoint node A 140A comprises a processor 142A, a PUF circuit 144A, a non-volatile memory 146A and a communications interface 148A. Endpoint node B comprises a processor 142B, a PUF circuit 144B, a non-volatile memory 146B and a communications interface 148B. The PUF circuit can be any weak or strong PUF, such as any of the delay-based PUFs (e.g., arbiter and ring-oscillator PUFs), memory PUF, sensor PUF, optical PUF, monostable PUF, via-PUF, etc. that has sufficient CRPs to support the number of endpoint nodes to be paired for direct secure mutual authentication. In addition, the PUF circuits 144A and 144B of the two endpoint nodes need not be the same. Both wire and wireless interfaces can be used for 148A and 148B as long as the endpoint nodes 140A and 140B use the same communication protocol supported by their enrolled network server. For example, WiFi and network socket for connection may be used. Long-distance communication interfaces like cellular network, Ethernet, short-distance wireless protocols like Bluetooth, RFID, NFC and wired communication like RS232, and USB are also possible. The high-speed chiplets require high bandwidth serial or parallel communication interface between dies or chips. The state-of-the-art serial interfaces are 112G USR/XSR (ultra-short reach, extra-short reach) and parallel interfaces are High Bandwidth Interconnect HBI (an offshoot of HBM) and OpenHBI, BoW (bunch of wires) and Intel Advanced Interface Bus (AIB).”).
As to claim 3, Zheng further discloses wherein the proof of origin data is root of trust data unique or substantially unique to the integrated circuit device, or data derived from the root of trust data (Zheng: Page 1, Sec 3; “To this end, Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) stands out as a promising embodiment to facilitate secure authentication and key exchange of IoT devices [1]-[3]. A PUF can be viewed as a physical circuit realization of a random oracle by harnessing the minute variance in modern semiconductor manufacturing processes. The lynchpin of PUF is the irreversible random mapping of a digital input (known as a challenge) to a digital output (known as a response). The challenge-response mapping is very similar to a cryptographic hash function except that the hardness to invert the function is originated from the physical disorder instead of the computational complexity theory. The chip-to-chip variances of a manufacturing process can be harvested by the PUF circuit. With enough basic PUF cells, many unique challenge-response pairs (CRPs) of arbitrary length can be generated from each chip for a huge number of manufactured chips. Although the PUF circuit itself is easy to make and the responses can be readily measured, it is practically infeasible to physically clone a PUF instance to reproduce the same CRPs. More importantly, no secret key needs to be stored locally on a device as the PUF can generate the device-specific secret (response) only upon request (by applying a challenge). Once the required number of CRPs have been successfully measured and enrolled into a secure server database, the external measurement interface of the PUF responses can be permanently disabled. Since the entire set of CRPs is intricately embodied in the nano-structure of the PUF, any active manipulation of the PUF circuit internals will cause dysfunction of the challenge-response mapping mechanism and destroy the secret. This tamper-evident property of PUF and its ability to securely identify a device by interrogation without the need for a permanent secret residence in anti-temper memory largely reduce the risks of many powerful hardware attack vectors such as reverse engineering, probing and fault injection attacks on physically accessible devices.”).
As to claim 7, Zheng further discloses wherein: the network is a peer-to-peer communication between the electronic communication apparatus and the remote device; the application layer interaction facilitates client and server interaction between the remote device and the electronic communication device, including: designating the remote device as a client device and the electronic communication apparatus as a server device for a first communication interaction; and designating the remote device as the server device and the electronic communication apparatus as the client device for a second communication interaction (Zheng: Fig 1; Page 4, Sec 42 - Page 5, Sec 44; PUF circuit; “The enrollment and update controller 120 comprises a processor 122, a secure memory 124 and a communications interface 126. Endpoint node A 140A comprises a processor 142A, a PUF circuit 144A, a non-volatile memory 146A and a communications interface 148A. Endpoint node B comprises a processor 142B, a PUF circuit 144B, a non-volatile memory 146B and a communications interface 148B. The PUF circuit can be any weak or strong PUF, such as any of the delay-based PUFs (e.g., arbiter and ring-oscillator PUFs), memory PUF, sensor PUF, optical PUF, monostable PUF, via-PUF, etc. that has sufficient CRPs to support the number of endpoint nodes to be paired for direct secure mutual authentication. In addition, the PUF circuits 144A and 144B of the two endpoint nodes need not be the same. Both wire and wireless interfaces can be used for 148A and 148B as long as the endpoint nodes 140A and 140B use the same communication protocol supported by their enrolled network server. For example, WiFi and network socket for connection may be used. Long-distance communication interfaces like cellular network, Ethernet, short-distance wireless protocols like Bluetooth, RFID, NFC and wired communication like RS232, and USB are also possible. The high-speed chiplets require high bandwidth serial or parallel communication interface between dies or chips. The state-of-the-art serial interfaces are 112G USR/XSR (ultra-short reach, extra-short reach) and parallel interfaces are High Bandwidth Interconnect HBI (an offshoot of HBM) and OpenHBI, BoW (bunch of wires) and Intel Advanced Interface Bus (AIB).”).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0032099 by Zheng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0317162 by Nazarian.
As to claim 4, Zheng discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Zheng additionally discloses wherein: the proof of origin data is generated from a physical unclonable function (PUF); and the integrated circuit device is a single monolithic integrated circuit formed within as part of a monolithic fabrication process (Zheng: Page 10, Sec 120; “Whilst the foregoing description has described exemplary embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that many variations of the embodiments can be made within the scope and spirit of the present invention. As the present invention is platform and communication interface agnostic, its application is not limited to securing off-chip communication. One good example of on-chip P2P network is a System-in-Package (SiP) chip, where smaller chiplets replace a large functional equivalent monolithic System-on-Chip (SoC), While disaggregating SoC into multiple chiplets offer numerous cost and performance advantages, it also increases the attack surface. Chiplets are exposed to rising risks of hardware-based trojans and man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. This invention provides a solution to authenticate the legitimacy of third-party chiplets and protect sensitive data transfers among chiplets to prevent them from being eavesdropped or sabotaged”.).
Zheng does not expressly discloses where the PUF uses resistive switching cells.
Nazarian discloses where the PUF uses resistive switching cells (Nazarian: Page 3, Sec 31-32; “[0031] More generally, stochastic physical characteristics can also be referred to as physical unclonable functions (PUF), physically unclonable features (also PUF), physical(ly) unclonable features, or other suitable nomenclature. Data derived from such stochastic physical characteristics are referred to herein as PUF data (or a PUF bit, or group of PUF bits, etc.) and generally involve a resistive switching cell process applied to one or more resistive switching cells that define a PUF bit(s) (e.g., see U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/223,817 filed Apr. 6, 2021, incorporated by reference hereinabove). PUF data can be generated from a cell process(es) applied to native resistive switching memory cells (sometimes referred to as virgin resistive switching memory cells) that have not had a memory process previously applied to those memory cells, following manufacture. Example memory processes can include a forming process (e.g., comprising one or more electrical forming pulses), a program process (e.g., comprising one or more electrical program pulses), an erase process (e.g., comprising one or more electrical erase pulses), an overwrite process, and so forth. In addition, PUF data generated from non-volatile resistive switching memory cells can thereafter be stored and read from at least a subset of the non-volatile resistive switching memory cells utilized to generate the PUF data.
[0032] Resistive switching memory cells suitable for generating identifier data, including PUF data, but also random number generation (RNG) data, as well as one-time programmable (OTP) data and many-time programmable (or re-programmable, overwritable, etc.) (MTP) data, include two-terminal resistive switching memory cells. Such two-terminal resistive switching memory cells can include: filamentary resistive switching memory (ReMEM), resistive random access memory (RRAM®), phase change memory (PCRAM), conductive-bridging memory (CBRAM®), programmable metallization cell memory (PMC), as well as magnetic memories such as magneto resistive memory (MRAM), spin torque transfer magneto resistive memory (STT-MRAM), vertical transport magneto resistive memory (VMRAM), ferroelectric memory (FeRAM), or other suitable two-terminal charge storage memory(ies). Where suitable to one of ordinary skill in the art, the foregoing memory technologies, like memory technologies, or suitable subsets thereof are considered within the meaning of two-terminal resistive switching memory for one or more embodiments of the present disclosure”).
Zheng and Nazarian are analogous art because they are from the common area of PUFs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the resistive switching cells of Nazarian in the system of Zheng. The rationale would have been to improve the semiconductor performance of the IC (Nazarian : Page 1, Sec 2-4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0032099 by Zheng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0232863 by Wright et al.
As to claim 5, Zheng discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Zheng does not expressly disclose wherein the integrated circuit device is a removable device configured to couple to and decouple from the internal communication bus to facilitate connection to and disconnection from, respectively, the processor.
Wright discloses wherein the integrated circuit device is a removable device configured to couple to and decouple from the internal communication bus to facilitate connection to and disconnection from, respectively, the processor (Wright: Page 9, Sec 130-132; PUFD device disclosed as a dongle with a USB or serial port connector) .
Zheng and Wright are analogous art because they are from the common area of PUFs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the removable device of Wright in the system of Zheng. The rationale would have been to have a portable, secure PUF device (Wright: Page 9, Sec 130-132).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0032099 by Zheng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0313911 by Mondello et al.
As to claim 6, Zheng discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Zheng does not expressly disclose wherein the application layer communication module is configured to generate a cryptographic key or key pair utilizing the proof of origin data and generates a digital signature and digital certificate for the electronic communication device for securing the communications between the remote device and the electronic communication apparatus and the application layer interaction.
Mondello discloses wherein the application layer communication module is configured to generate a cryptographic key or key pair utilizing the proof of origin data and generates a digital signature and digital certificate for the electronic communication device for securing the communications between the remote device and the electronic communication apparatus and the application layer interaction (Mondello: Page 8, Sec 115 and Page 10, Sec 145; “ In one example, the vehicular communication component 130 sends a vehicular public key to the external communication component (e.g., acting as a host device 151), and the external communication component sends an external public key to the vehicular communication component 130. These public keys (vehicular and external) can be used to encrypt data sent to each respective communication component and verify an identity of each, and also exchange confirmations and other information. As an example, as described further below, the vehicular communication component 130 can encrypt data using the received external public key and send the encrypted data to the external communication component. Likewise, the external communication component can encrypt data using the received vehicular public key and send the encrypted data to the vehicular communication component 130. Data sent by the vehicle 100 can include car information, passenger information, goods information, and the like. The information can optionally be sent with a digital signature to verify an identity of the vehicle 100. Moreover, information can be provided to the vehicle 100 and displayed on a dashboard of the vehicle 100 or sent to an email of a computing device (e.g., a user device or central server that monitors vehicles) associated with the vehicle 100. The vehicle can be recognized based on an identification of the vehicle, a VIN number, etc., along with a vehicular digital signature.” and “ A vehicle computing device 810″ (e.g., vehicle computing device 110 in FIG. 3 or computing device 141 of FIG. 1) can send data Dat″ to an external computing device 810′ (or to any other computing device in general). The vehicle computing device 810″ can generate a signature Sk using the vehicular private key KLkprivate. The signature Sk can be transmitted to the external computing device 810′. The external computing device 810′ can verify using data Dat′ and the public key KLkpublic previously received (e.g., the vehicular public key). In this way, signature verification operates by using a private key to encrypt the signature and a public key to decrypt the signature. In this way, a unique signature for each device can remain private to the device sending the signature while allowing the receiving device to be able to decrypt the signature for verification. This is in contrast to encryption/decryption of the data, which is encrypted by the sending device using the public key of the receiving device and decrypted by the receiving device using the private key of the receiver. In at least one example, the vehicle can verify the digital signature by using an internal cryptography process (e.g., Elliptical Curve Digital signature (ECDSA) or a similar process).”).
Zheng and Mondello are analogous art because they are from the common area of PUFs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the key and signature generation of Mondell0 in the system of Zheng. The rationale would have been to enable the encryption of communicated data (Mondello: Page 8, Sec 115).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0032099 by Zheng et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0351754 by Wallrabenstein et al.
As to claim 8, Zheng discloses all recited elements of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Zheng does not expressly disclose wherein the application layer communication utilizes a multi-party computation (MPC) algorithm implemented at least at the electronic communication apparatus and the remote device to generate a MPC cryptographic key including at least: a first share of the MPC cryptographic key at the electronic communication apparatus and a second share of the MPC cryptographic key at the remote device, wherein the MPC cryptographic key is utilized to facilitate the secure communications between the remote device and the electronic communication apparatus..
Wallrabenstein discloses wherein the application layer communication utilizes a multi-party computation (MPC) algorithm implemented at least at the electronic communication apparatus and the remote device to generate a MPC cryptographic key including at least: a first share of the MPC cryptographic key at the electronic communication apparatus and a second share of the MPC cryptographic key at the remote device, wherein the MPC cryptographic key is utilized to facilitate the secure communications between the remote device and the electronic communication apparatus (Wallrabenstein: Page 7, Sec 86-87; “[0086] Using Algorithm 3, a local device can perform an enrollment protocol using the PUF. This allows each PUF circuit to generate a local public key p.sub.i.sup.pub, which is useful for bootstrapping more complex key setup algorithms (e.g., the distributed key generation protocol in Algorithm 4). When the key setup algorithm is performed internal to the device (rather than externally among a set of distinct devices), this bootstrap process may not be necessary. [0087] Next, PUF-based cryptographic primitives are adapted to secret sharing to permit threshold cryptography founded on PUF or other root of trust. Using the example of an embodiment employing elliptic curve cryptography, distributed key generation is used to generate a number of shares (for example, two: r.sub.1, r.sub.2) of a master private key.sup.priv=(r.sub.1+r.sub.2)mod q) , which itself does not need to be generated or constructed at any time during the protocol. The protocol is summarized in Algorithm 4: PUF-DKG, where in an example implementation, (t, n) is chosen as (2, 2).”).
Zheng and Wallrabenstein are analogous art because they are from the common area of PUFs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the multi party key generation of Wallrabenstein in the system of Zheng. The rationale would have been to allow a PUF-enabled device to locally store and retrieve a sensitive value without needing to store any sensitive information in non-volatile memory (Wallrabenstein: Page 7, Sec 85).
As to claim 9, the modified Zheng/Wallrabenstein reference further discloses wherein the MPC cryptographic key is utilized for a first communication session between the electronic communication apparatus and the remote device, and wherein a second communication session between the electronic communication apparatus and the remote device utilizes the MPC algorithm to generate a second MPC cryptographic key, or utilizes a second cryptographic algorithm to generate a second cryptographic key, for securing the second communication session. (Wallrabenstein: Page 7, Sec 86-87; “[0086] Using Algorithm 3, a local device can perform an enrollment protocol using the PUF. This allows each PUF circuit to generate a local public key p.sub.i.sup.pub, which is useful for bootstrapping more complex key setup algorithms (e.g., the distributed key generation protocol in Algorithm 4). When the key setup algorithm is performed internal to the device (rather than externally among a set of distinct devices), this bootstrap process may not be necessary. [0087] Next, PUF-based cryptographic primitives are adapted to secret sharing to permit threshold cryptography founded on PUF or other root of trust. Using the example of an embodiment employing elliptic curve cryptography, distributed key generation is used to generate a number of shares (for example, two: r.sub.1, r.sub.2) of a master private key.sup.priv=(r.sub.1+r.sub.2)mod q) , which itself does not need to be generated or constructed at any time during the protocol. The protocol is summarized in Algorithm 4: PUF-DKG, where in an example implementation, (t, n) is chosen as (2, 2).”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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 S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights