DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's election of Group I, encompassed by claims 1-10, for examination in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which, claims 11-16 have been withdrawn.
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 limitations use 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 identification module…to perform”, and “a security module…to perform” as recited in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: e.g., figs. 1-4, p. 8-24 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiattarella et al. (US 2022/0067221) in view of Yang (US 2023/0224172).
Claim 1, Schiattarella teaches:
An electronic device comprising:
a memory; (e.g., [0056], “The persistent storage may be within the HSM 120, as shown”)
an interface part including a first interface and a second interface having different connection methods; (e.g., fig. 1, [0046], “access the key usage interface 144 through a suitable key usage interconnect 126” [0056], “access a key management interface 146 of the HSM 120 through a secure processor port 130”)
a processor operationally connected to at least one of the interface part and the memory; (e.g., fig. 1, [0056], “The processor 128 is able to…access a key management interface 146 of the HSM 120 through a secure processor port 130. The processor then operates as a crypto-officer to the HSM and is able to drive management functions, including generating and deleting key pairs and backing up the keys to a persistent storage, such as nonvolatile memory, such as flash. The persistent storage may be within the HSM 120, as shown”)
an identification module connected to the second interface to perform subscriber authentication; and (e.g., [0040], “The HSM may use logical partitions to expose different virtual HSMs to different crypto-officers and crypto-users. Upon authenticating to the HSM, each crypto-officer and each crypto-user will have access to one or only a few logical partitions. Different authentications may be required to access different logical partitions. The separation between different logical partitions prevents one crypto-officer or crypto-user from accessing the keys of another” [0054], “the policy manager 134 communicates with a processor 128, such as a central processing unit (CPU) or other controller, through the separate management port 136. The processor authenticates and identifies the policy manager” [0056], “The processor 128 is able to…access a key management interface 146 of the HSM 120 through a secure processor port 130” [0071], “the HSM exposes a different set of keys based on the identity of the policy manager, as authenticated using credentials like TLS certificates, username and passwords, etc. Other sets of keys may be blocked as outside the accessed logical partition. The key management interface authenticates the external policy manager using credentials and then the key management interface exposes a set of keys to the external policy manager in response to the authentication”)
a security module connected to the first interface to perform a security function. (e.g., [0047], “The HSM 120 has access to a secure key storage 152 through a key extraction and anti-tampering mechanism 150 that allows the HSM to extract the keys, decrypt the keys, and write the keys to a protected memory partition for use by the high-performance crypto engines” [0048], “The HSM may also perform any other cryptography operations using the high-performance crypto engines. In addition to encryption and decryption, the crypto engines may, for example…generate new keys. These additional operations may be used for TLS (Transport Layer Security) session establishment” [0050], “In both receiving and transmitting, the key usage interface 144 provides access to the high-performance crypto engines 148” [0059], “The keys used by the high-performance crypto engines 148 may be those that are stored in the secure key storage 152”)
Schiattarella teaches a security module connected to the first interface on to perform a security function (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Yang teaches:
on the basis of a generated unique identification key. (e.g., [0093], “an identification device 100a may include a PUF integrated circuit 100a (PUF IC) and a communication interface 102a” [0094], “The identification device 100a may transmit a response RES including the identification information of the identification device 100a to outside of the identification device 100a in response to the request RQ received from outside of the identification device 100a” [0095], “The identification information included in the response RES transmitted by the identification device 100a may be used to identify the user of the identification device 100a. The identification information included in the response RES may be generated on the basis of the security key KEY generated by the PUF integrated circuit 101a”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Yang into the invention of Schiattarella, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of predicting the possibility of intrusion attacks in advance without increasing the overhead to increase the security level (Yang [0008]-[0009]).
Claim 2, Schiattarella-Yang teaches:
wherein the security module includes a physically unclonable function (PUF) chip configured to generate the unique identification key. (e.g., Schiattarella [0081]; Yang [0093]-[0095])
Claim 3, Schiattarella-Yang teaches:
wherein the identification module and the security module operate independently of each other. (e.g., Schiattarella fig. 1, [0046], [0056])
Claim 7, Schiattarella-Yang teaches:
wherein the processor turns on or off only operation of at least one of the identification module and the security module. (e.g., Schiattarella [0057])
Claim 8, Schiattarella-Yang teaches:
wherein the processor transmits a received first packet to a past module that has executed a packet received immediately before the first packet between the identification module and the security module. (e.g., Schiattarella [0087]-[0090])
Claim 10, Schiattarella-Yang teaches:
wherein the processor transmits a received first packet to any one of the identification module and the security module corresponding to an initial packet for the first packet. (e.g., Schiattarella [0087]-[0090])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiattarella et al. (US 2022/0067221) in view of Yang (US 2023/0224172) further in view of Kim et al. (EP 3598696 A1).
Claim 4, Schiattarella-Yang teaches wherein the processor performs subscriber authentication (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Kim teaches:
after a certain time when a security function is performed. (e.g., [0079], [0083], [0096])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Kim into the invention of Schiattarella-Yang, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of preventing a security attack (Kim [0001]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiattarella et al. (US 2022/0067221) in view of Yang (US 2023/0224172) further in view of Kreder, III et al. (US 2020/0394651).
Claim 5, Schiattarella-Yang teaches the first interface (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Kreder teaches:
an inter-integrated circuit (I2C) interface and a serial peripheral interface (SPI). (e.g., [0114])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Kreder into the invention of Schiattarella-Yang, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of allowing components to communicate with other components for secure transactions (Kreder [0114]).
Claim 6, Schiattarella-Yang teaches the first interface (see above) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Kreder teaches:
wherein the second interface includes an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) interface and an International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) interface. (e.g., [0127])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Kreder into the invention of Schiattarella-Yang, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of establishing communication between different components to meet or exceed specifications defined by standards (Kreder [0127]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiattarella et al. (US 2022/0067221) in view of Yang (US 2023/0224172) further in view of Yoo (US 2024/0272691).
Claim 9, Schiattarella-Yang teaches wherein the processor transmits a received first packet to a first module which is any one of the identification module and the security module in order of priority, the processor transmits a second packet subsequent to the first packet to a second module or transmits a re-request for the first packet to an external device. (e.g., Schiattarella [0087]-[0090]) and does not appear to explicitly teach but Yoo teaches:
when a first module does not operate, a processor transmits to a second module. (e.g., [0097]-[0098])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings described by Yoo into the invention of Schiattarella-Yang, and the motivation for such an implementation would be for the purpose of continuing an operation that has been suspended due to power instability or sudden power-off (Yoo [0098]-[0099]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0309193 discloses a security device transfers cryptographic key material to a data storage device to enable communication between the host device and the data storage device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE C LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7752. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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, GELAGAY SHEWAYE 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.
/AMIE C. LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights