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 1-16 were previously examined.
Claims, 2, 8, 10 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 14 are amended on July 10, 2026.
Claim 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-15 are pending on this examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see under “Claim Rejection 35 USC 101” filed July 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
Applicant argued that the recited claim is concerned "a more secure implementation of a test, such as a logic test or an arithmetic test, that is, an implementation of a test in which the data used are less likely to be captured by a third party, or an implementation of a test which is less vulnerable to side-channel attacks, and, in particular, to fault injection attacks" and that this purpose, the implementation modes described hereafter are based on the use of at least two stages' of lookup tables (LUTS)." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0034]. The specification further explains the technical mechanism by which this improvement is achieved: "… making it more resistant to side-channel attacks, and in particular to fault injection attacks," because "if the targeted data word is a value of one of the primary or secondary lookup tables, it is more difficult to find a data word effectively modifying the operation of test 200."
In Responses:
Examiner disagreed because the recited claim 1 is method claim for comparison and it does not comprise any hardware at all for any “side channel attack such as “to fault injection attacks”
Examiner disagreed because the recited claim 9 comprising a standalone electronic device such as generic computer for performing comparison. It does not connect to any other channels or any other devices or transmit/receive from other network. Therefore, it is not possible for any “side channel attack such as “to fault injection attacks”
Applicant’s argument is not in the recited claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “side channel attack” and/or “to fault injection attacks”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). side channel attack such as “to fault injection attacks”
As such, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1 and 9 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “dividing the first data word into at least two portions; (dividing is based on mathematical processes of division) comparing each portion of the at least one portion two portions of the first data word with at least one corresponding portion of the at least one second data word by using, for each comparison; (comparing is based on mathematical processes of comparison between two inputs) and one of a plurality of first lookup tables, each first lookup table containing, for each possible value of the portion, a value representing a result of comparing that possible value with the corresponding portion of the at least one second data word, wherein the comparing comprises selecting, from the one of the plurality of first lookup tables, the value corresponding to the portion of the first data word as a result of the comparison; (dividing is based on mathematical processes of division) concatenating the results of comparing the at least two portions of the first data word into a fourth data word; and ; (concatenating is based on mathematical processes of addition) comparing the fourth data word with the at least one second data word by using a second lookup table, the second lookup table containing, for each possible value of the fourth data word, a value representing a result of comparing the first data word with the at least one second data word, wherein the comparing comprises selecting, from the second lookup table, the value corresponding to the fourth data word, (comparing is based on mathematical processes of comparison between two inputs) the selected value indicating one of: that the test is verified, that the test is not verified, and that the test has not been executed correctly” (output the results is based on mathematical processes of comparison between two inputs) s a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical processes but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “an electronic device” “ (see claim 9).
Claim 3 recites “…result of the first lookup tables is a third binary word” is based on mathematical process and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Claim 4-6 recite a description of binary word comprising bits and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Claims 7-8 recites a method of comparing based on mathematical process and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
Other dependent claims 10-16 recite similar limitations as claims 2-8 and therefore it does not overcome abstract rejection.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical but for the recitation of generic computer components and software module, then it falls within the “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The computer electronic device can (1) divide a first data word into one portion or two portions then (2) compare a portion of first word with a portion of the second word and (3) compare result with lookup table.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract limitation.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a generic processor such as “an electronic device” for comparing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of comparing. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-15 do not recite any additional elements except a generic processor such as “an electronic device” for comparing. Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality comparing words.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights