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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on April 10, 2025.
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 10, 2025 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2025was filed after the mailing date of the application 19/175467 on April 10, 2025. 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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To being with claim 1 recites:
generating, based on iteratively performing a plurality of stretching operations…., as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being mathematical concepts. For example, but for the “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the mathematical calculation of binary sequence. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element –using the device to perform the mathematical calculation steps. The device in this step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of mathematical calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites:
receiving a challenge signal…;
The limitation of receiving a challenge signal and as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “device” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the act. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a device to perform “receiving”. The device in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “receiving”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim includes one additional element of “receiving a challenge signal…” on a device. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting network signal/data for use in the mathematical or mental steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device to perform the mathematical or mental steps or data gathering amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The independent claim 11 recite limitations that are similar to those of claim 1; therefore, rejected under same rational of claim 1.
The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 which depends on independent claims 1, and 11 respectively as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind/mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Therefore, the dependent claims fail to obviate such rejections and are themselves rejected under this title for they are also abstract ideas.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,301,738. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claims 1-19 of this instant application are found in claims 1-18 of the patent No. ‘738. Therefore, claims 1-19 of this instant application are anticipated by claims 1-18 of Patent ‘738, because all the limitation of broader genus claims of this instant application are contained in the narrower species claims of Patent ‘738.
Application No.19/175,467
Patent No. 12,301,738
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a challenge signal that defines parameters of components of a device, an input width of a pulse, or a combination of the two; and
generating, based on iteratively performing a plurality of stretching operations causing an amplification of the input width of the pulse and a plurality of folding operations causing a reduction of the input width less than the amplification, a binary sequence used to identify the device among nominally identical counterparts of the device.
1. A method, comprising:
(i) receiving a challenge signal that defines parameters of components of a device, an input width of a pulse, or a combination of the two;
(ii) generating, based on iteratively performing a plurality of stretching operations causing an amplification of the input width of the pulse and a plurality of folding operations causing a reduction of the input width of the pulse less than the amplification according to a chaotic map, one or more output signals comprising an amplified pulse width corresponding to the input width of the pulse; (iii) generating, based on the one or more output signals comprising the amplified pulse width, a group of output binary bits; (iv) determining bits of the group of output binary bits that are unique across nominally identical implementations of the device and processes of the device; and (v) generating, based on repeating (i) to (iv) a threshold number of times, a binary sequence used to identify the device among nominally identical counterparts of the device.
11. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; anda memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive a challenge signal that defines parameters of components of a device, an input width of a pulse, or a combination of the two; and generate, based on iteratively performing a plurality of stretching operations causing an amplification of the input width of the pulse and a plurality of folding operations causing a reduction of the input width less than the amplification, a binary sequence used to identify the device among nominally identical counterparts of the device.
10. An apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to perform operations comprising:
(i) receive a challenge signal that defines parameters of components of a device, an input width of a pulse, or a combination of the two; (ii) generate, based on iteratively performing a plurality of stretching operations causing an amplification of the input width of the pulse and a plurality of folding operations causing a reduction of the input width of the pulse less than the amplification according to a chaotic map, one or more output signals comprising an amplified pulse width corresponding to the input width of the pulse; (iii) generate, based on the one or more output signals comprising the amplified pulse width, a group of output binary bits; (iv) determine bits of the group of output binary bits that are unique across nominally identical implementations of the device and processes of the device; and (v) generate, based on repeating (i) to (iv) a threshold number of times, a binary sequence used to identify the device among nominally identical counterparts of the device.
Claims 1-18 of Patent No. ‘738 contain every element of claims 1-19 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application/patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 1-19 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 101 (Alice) and Double Patenting Rejection, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 1, and 11:
The closest prior art Fujita et al. (U.S. 2007/0110125 A1 [provided by the applicant]) discloses:
“A transmitting device includes a continuous pulse generating unit, modulating unit, and output unit. The continuous pulse generating unit continuously generates multiple impulse waveforms at arbitrary time intervals but shorter than the pulse string repetition cycle. The modulating unit modulates continuous pulses generated by the continuous pulse generating unit, using transmission data. The output unit outputs a modulated pulse modulated by the modulating unit. The receiving device includes a modulated pulse receiving unit that receives a modulated pulse transmitted from the above-mentioned transmitting device; and a demodulating unit that receives transmission data by demodulating a modulated pulse received by the modulated pulse receiving unit” (Abstract).
Another closest prior art, Erhart et al. (US 20080279373 A1[provided by the applicant]) discloses
“…physically unclonable information is read from a device. According to the invention, the device has installed on it a PUF circuit or the like onto an integrated circuit (IC). The PUF circuit is configured to generate an identification number that identifies the IC in which it is installed. Generally, the PUF circuit may be made up of a plurality of identification cells formed within the IC, where each cell has an output that is a substantial function of random parametric variations in the IC and thus unique to the IC by virtue of its manufacture. A measuring device may monitor the output of the identification cells to generate an ID that is unique to the device, where the ID is also a substantial function of random parametric variations in the identification cells. It is known to those skilled in the art that there are enough manufacturing process variations across ICs produced in the same process to uniquely characterize ICs. It has also been proven that reliable authentication can be performed using words derived from such unique characterizations. The invention exploits such knowledge, and utilizes this to provide a novel and useful method of authenticating a device or application using PUF circuits” (Para 0061).
Another closest prior art, Abid et al. (NPL: Implementation of a Chaotically Encrypted Wireless Communication System [provided by the applicant]) discloses receiving an encrypted binary signal having a number of bits (Page 4, Col: 1st). The encrypted binary signal represents an original message to be recovered (Page 3, Col: 1st; and Page 4, Col: 1st); receiving a training packet (precursor signal) comprising unscrambled bits (Page 4, Col: 1st); and recovering the original message by transforming the encrypted binary signal using the unscrambled bits and an inverse chaotic map (Page 4, Col: 1st).
Another prior art Sherman et al. (US 20020176574 A1 [provided by the applicant]) discloses “…combines the information signal with an analog random signal generated by a chaotic circuit and transmits the signal. The received signal is synchronized using a receiving chaotic circuit. The received signal is demodulated using a synchronized replica of the analog random signal. The information signal is recovered since the product of the random signals generated in the transmitter and in the receiver, is unity…” (Abstract).
Another prior art Hamlet et al. (US 8868923 B1[provided by the applicant]) discloses “…if the ID is to be randomized for added security, then process 200 continues to a process block 223. In process block 223, cryptographic fingerprint unit 135 generates the ID as a randomized value. In one embodiment, the ID can be generated based on a portion of the PUF value output from PUF circuit 140. In yet another embodiment, a second ID PUF may be included within cryptographic fingerprint unit 135 for generating a randomized ID” (Col 9: lines 57-65).
However, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of independent claims 1, and 11 “receiving a challenge signal that defines parameters of components of a device, an input width of a pulse, or a combination of the two; and
generating, based on iteratively performing a plurality of stretching operations causing an amplification of the input width of the pulse and a plurality of folding operations causing a reduction of the input width less than the amplification, a binary sequence used to identify the device among nominally identical counterparts of the device” along with other limitations independent claims 1, and 11.
For this reason, the specific claim limitations recited in the independent claims 1, and 11 taken as whole are allowed.
The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 which are dependent on the above independent claims 1, and 11 being further limiting to the independent claim, definite and enabled by the specification are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights