DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 07/24/2025. Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 .
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 1-5 are rejected 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the set of PUF devices” (line 10) lacks antecedent basis which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the aforementioned phrase refers to “a first set of PUF devices” or “a second set of PUF devices”, which makes the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a second set of PUF devices in the first set of PUF devices” (line 9) renders the claim indefinite. Without further context or details, it is unclear as to whether the first set and the second set are necessarily different, while it appears that the second set of PUF devices are intended to be a proper subset of the first set of PUF devices, making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Examiner recommends Applicant to consider clarifying that the second set is different from the first set or utilizing words such as “subset” or “superset” in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “resulting in a first/second response bitstream” (lines 10-11) renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “resulting in” suggests causation, or a consequence of action, but it is unclear exactly what contributes to resulting in the first response bitstream, making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Examiner recommends Applicant to consider specifying “resulting in … in response to / based on ..” to clearly show the cause and effect in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Regarding claims 2-5, which claim dependency from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Cambou (US 2020/0295954 A1: PUF-Based Key Generation for Cryptographic Schemes), Cambou (US 2020/0213140 A1: Keyless Encrypting Schemes Using Physical Unclonable Function Devices), Ahn et al. (US 2021/0243042 A1: Security Device for Generating Masking Data Based on Physically Unclonable Function and Operating Method Thereof), and Cambou (US 2020/0162271 A1: Unequally Powered Cryptography Using Physical Unclonable Functions).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights