Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed action
Claims 18-32 are pending and being considered.
Claims 18-31 have been elected by the applicant.
Claim 32 is non-elected claim (Withdrawn).
Specification
The specification filed on November 08, 2026 have been accepted.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on November 08, 2026 have been accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group A (claims 18-31) in reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application no. 18/864383. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 18 and 31 recites “the accepted challenge signal” should read as “the challenge signal” to overcome potential antecedent issue.
Claims 18-30 the term “where” should read as “wherein”
Claims 18 and 31 recites “validating the response by comparing the response to a previously characterized challenge response function of the communications network device in the particular physical communications network environment.” The examiner notes that since there is no active step performed responsive to validating the response to the challenge signal, therefore purpose of validating the response to the challenge is unclear. The examiner suggest that the claim should recites an active step clarifying the purpose of validating the response i.e., authenticating the identity of communication network device.
Claim 21 recites “a scattered signal from the environment external to the communication network device….” please clarify whether the “scattered signal” is the second part of the challenge signal.
Claim 29 recites “coupling a plurality of communications network devices to the environment external to the communications network device, each of the communications network devices containing substantially identical PUFs, and applying the challenge signal to all the communications network devices” should read as “coupling a plurality of communications network devices to the environment external to the communications network device, each of the plurality of the communications network devices containing substantially identical PUFs, and applying the challenge signal to the plurality of the communications network devices”
Claim 30 recites “The method of claim 18 in which a group of similar PUFs…..” should read as “The method of claim 18 comprising a group of similar PUFs….” Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 and 31 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. The claim 18 recites “coupling all or part of the accepted challenge signal or all or part of a transformation of the accepted challenge signal in the form of radiation into an environment external to the communications network device comprising one or more physical network channel media of the communication network” the phrase “coupling all or part of the accepted challenge signal or all or part of a transformation of the accepted challenge signal in the form of radiation into an environment external to the communications network device” is ambiguous because it’s unclear whether the above phrase should be interpreted as the challenge signal “coupled …….into an environment external to the communication network device” OR whether challenge signal is “coupled……to the communication network device”
The examiner further notes that the above limitation is interpreted as “coupling all or part of the accepted challenge signal to the communications network device comprising one or more physical network channel media of the communication network” OR
“Coupling all or part of a transformation of the accepted challenge signal in the form of radiation into an environment external to the communications network device comprising one or more physical network channel media of the communication network” since rest of the claim is directed towards “transformation of the challenge signal in the form of radiation”, therefore “transformation of the challenge signal in the form of radiation” is mandatory step in the claim. Hence, the examiner suggests that the above limitation should read as
“transforming the and coupling the radiation to an environment external to the communications network device comprising one or more physical network channel media of the communication network”
Claims 18 and 31 recites the limitation "the scattered signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the scattered signal is the outcome of radiation scattered between external environment and PUF. Please clarify how and when the scattered signal is generated.
Claims 18 and 31 recites the limitation "a response to the challenge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please clarify whether the challenge should read as “the challenge signal”
Claim 24 recites “wherein: (i) the PUF and/or, (ii) when the method, the additional PUF is/are any of: an engineered PUF in the communications network device, result of natural variation of functional components of the communications network device, and a hybrid of an engineered PUF in the communications network device and natural variation of functional components of the communications network device.” the above underlined and bolded portion of the claim is indefinite. It appears that the claim should read as “wherein
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the challenge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please clarify whether the challenge should read as “the challenge signal”
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the multiple responses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further recites “the multiple responses are compared” it’s unclear whether the multiple responses are compared against each other or with pre-stored responses corresponding to each device.
Dependent claims 19-30 are also rejected due to inheriting deficiency of independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-31 are objected for containing allowable subject matter. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). In the instant case, the applicant should amend to address the claim objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as listed above.
The following is a statement of a reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Baer et al (US 20200142128) is directed towards security markings that provide a way to effectively mark a physical object, such as a product or device, in order to verify the authenticity of the object and potentially protect the object against counterfeiting and tampering. It was found that narrowband multilayer photonic crystals can be fabricated from two or more materials having different indices of refraction using, for example, coextrusion technology. When layer uniformity within a multilayer photonic crystal structure is not achieved, the measured electromagnetic transmission or reflection spectrum and/or spectra will not conform to simple model simulations.
Foster et al (US 20190156066) is directed towards system and method is provided for a cryptographic primitive and authentication protocol comprised of micro-cavity resonators at optical wavelengths. A micro-cavity resonator is illuminated with an optical challenge signal and the cavity returns an output response that is dependent on the input signal. Digital signal processing is performed on the output signal to generate a corresponding digital representation. This process is repeated for variations of the input signal with its digital output being stored in a database. A user or object claiming an identity presents a token to the system. The system selects a subset of the available challenge-response pairs and presents the challenges to the token. The system compares the digitized responses with the original responses expected for that token. The system will approve or deny the claimed identity corresponding to the presented token.
Pinkse et al (US 20150229482) is directed towards a device for verifying at least one challenge-response pair includes a coherent light source configured to emit coherent light. A challenge creating device is configured to create an optical challenge to be sent to a physically unclonable function (PUF). A wavefront shaping device is configured to perform a verification based on an optical response from the physically unclonable function (PUF). A detector is configured to read out a result of the verification performed by the wavefront shaping device. A focusing device is configured to focus light exiting from the wavefront shaping device onto the detector for detection.
Choi et al (US 20200145235) is directed towards an integrated circuit for a challenge-response physically unclonable function (PUF) and a method of using the integrated circuit, and more particularly, to an integrated circuit which provides a structure in which the PUF is used for challenge-response authentication and a method of using the integrated circuit.
Charis et al (NPL: Photonic Pseudo-Random Number Generator for Internet-of-Things Authentication using a Waveguide based Physical Unclonable Function) is directed towards evaluate a physical unclonable function based on a polymer optical waveguide, as a time-invariant, replication-resilient, source of entropy. The elevated physical unclonability of our implementation is combined with spatial light modulation and post processing techniques, thus allowing the deterministic generation of an exponentially large pool of unpredictable responses. The quality of the generated numbers is validated through NIST/DIEHARD(ER) suites, whereas the overall security of the scheme is benchmarked assuming attackers with elevated privileges in terms of system access. Finally, based on the demonstrated key features, we present and analyze a mutual authentication implementation scenario which is fully compatible with state-of-the-art commercial Internet-Of-Things architectures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3522. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM EST M-TH Alternate Fridays.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/MOEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights