DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/01/2025. Claims 21-40 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 18/517,801, filed on 11/22/2023, which is a continuation of the U.S patent application 17/215,765, filed on 03/29/2021, which is a continuation of the U.S patent application No. 16/171,747, filed on 10/26/2018, which claims benefits to the provisional application No. 62/591,957, filed on 11/29/2017, which papers have been placed on record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 of any patents granted on application No. 18/517,801, claims 1-20 of any patents granted on application No. 17/215,765 and claims 1-18 and 20-21 of any patents granted on application No. 16/171,747.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming a common subject matter, “In response to comparing key bits of generated occurrences or comparing access speed of memory cells, storing identified unstable key bits in a memory which does not store stable key bits or generating security keys by excluding the unstable key bit from the security key.”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable with a terminal disclaimer or rewritten to overcome the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection, set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for identifying allowable subject matter.
The closest prior arts made of records are, Lu et al. (U.S Pub No. 2015/0278505 A1, referred to as Lu), Trimberger (U.S Pat No. 9,584,329 B1, referred to as Trimberger) and Nishino et al. (U.S Pat No. 7,222,040 B1, referred to as Nishino).
Lu discloses a method of authenticating a target device using a reader and a data store, by sending a selected challenge data value from the reader to the target device multiple times, receiving at the reader the respective response data value generated by the target device in response to each instance of the challenge data value sent by the reader, determining a representative response data value from the response data values received by the reader, comparing the representative response data value against the response data values in the respective challenge-response data set and determining that the target device is authentic if the representative data value matches any one of the response data values from a respective challenge-response data set.
Trimberger discloses approaches for using a physically unclonable function (PUF), wherein a selector map is used to indicate stable and unstable bits in a PUF value that is generated by a PUF circuit. The stable bits of the PUF value generated by the PUF circuit may be selected for use by an application, and the unstable bits ignored.
Nishino discloses methods and apparatus for testing a static random-access memory (SRAM) to obtain performance data on the SRAM and using the performance data as at least a basis of an identification number.
However, regarding claim 21, the prior art of Lu, Trimberger and Nishino when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator configured to compare an access speed of the first memory cell to an access speed of the second memory cell, generate a plurality of key bits based on the comparison, identify at least one unstable bit of the plurality of key bits, and store the at least one unstable bit in a memory; and a controller configured to generate a security key in response to receiving a challenge, wherein generating the security key includes accessing the memory and excluding the at least one unstable bit from the security key.”.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of Lu, Trimberger and Nishino when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “comparing an access speed of a first memory cell to an access speed of a second memory cell; generating a plurality of key bits based on the comparison; identifying at least one unstable bit of the plurality of key bits; receiving a challenge; and generating a security key in response to receiving the challenge, wherein generating the security key includes excluding the at least one unstable bit from the security key.”.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art of Lu, Trimberger and Nishino when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator configured to: compare an access speed of the first memory cell to an access speed of the second memory cell; generate a plurality of key bits based on the comparison; identify at least one unstable bit of the plurality of key bits; store the at least one unstable bit in the memory; and generate a security key in response to receiving a challenge, wherein generating the security key includes accessing the memory and excluding the at least one unstable bit from the security key.”.
Claims 22-27 depend on claim 21, claims 29-34 depend on claim 28 and claims 36-40 depend on claim 35, and are of consequence identified as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Mehrmanesh Amir can be reached at 571-2703351. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights