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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered. After further consideration, the prior rejection is maintained and the claims themselves remain unclear in a way that prevents The Examiner from applying a properly informed prior art search.
The Examiner notes Applicant’s response to the previously issued 35 USC § 112 rejections all include some version of “the POSITA understands…” and “The specification explicitly discloses…”; however, the claim limitations The Examiner indicated as unclear do not have the specificity of the specification and could reasonably be construed by one of ordinary skill in the art more than one way – as a result they are unclear. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claim – and that is exactly what must be done to potentially understand the claims. As a result, the previously issued 35 USC § 112 rejections are maintained and Applicant is requested to provide the clarity and specificity needed to make the claims clear by adding the needed clarity to the claim language without relying on importing limitations from the specification into the claims.
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 – 16 are rejected under 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…corrected PRG output obtained by evaluating the PRG on the LPN encryption…”; however, this is not clear because the claimed “corrected” PRG output by evaluating was generated using an error vector (noise) – and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what is meant here: is it the raw PRG output on the noisy encryption (which would be error-affected), or is it the later error-corrected output that the specification describes as requiring additional “recovery” using secret-seed components, or is it something else? The Examiner asserts the specification’s technical section explicitly separates those into two steps (evaluate [Wingdings font/0xE0] erroneous output; then recover corrected output), but the claim collapses them into one and labels it “corrected”. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims. Applicant’s arguments appear to improperly rely on the specification being used to import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 1 recites “…corrupted PRG output…evaluating the PRG on an LPN encryption…and the predicted error vector…”; however, this is not clear because the claim instructs evaluating the PRG “on” two different things, but the claim never explains how to combine them into the single PRG input that is actually evaluated. The different possible mathematical operation are all different operations with different results and different metes and bounds – and one of ordinary skill in the art has no way of knowing which to use because the claim does not specify. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 1 recites “…predetermined threshold…dependent on a length of the error vector…”; however, this is not clear because the claim says the Hamming-distance threshold is “dependent on” the error-vector length, but the phrase has no limiting meaning by itself that defines the dependency. The Examiner cannot reasonably determine with certainty what threshold lengths fall inside or outside the claim. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 2 recites “…a tensor of a vector…tensor is of degree…”; however, this is not clear because the claim does not clearly state what tensor operation is required (product, power, or something else), what the resulting object’s structure is, or the exact vector being tensored. As a result of the claim not specifically identifying the mathematical construction, different readers could reasonably implement different “tensor” operations that have different metes and bounds. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 3 recites “…predicting the error vector sampled from the PUF…regression model…”; however, this is not clear because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that any regression model (with correspondingly different metes and bounds) will output some estimate, and without an objective criterion (minimum accuracy, maximum Hamming distance, statistical bound) The Examiner cannot tell when the claim step is satisfied versus not satisfied because the claim does not tie “predicting” to any measurable standard. As a result, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be reasonably determined. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 6 recites “…inner products…are equal to zero…”; however, this is not clear because the arithmetic domain is not specified. The Examiner asserts zero over ordinary integers is not the same as zero modulo w and as a result of different arithmetic domains having different metes and bounds, The Examiner cannot reasonably tell what is being claimed. In addition, the claim does not specify whether all pairwise inner products across the entire set system are 0 or only certain structured pairings are 0 – thus resulting in the metes and bounds of the limitation not being able to be reasonably determined. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 8 recites “…a randomly selected…”; however, this is not clear because The Examiner has no reasonable way to determine who in the method performs the random selection and every element should have a clear actor in order to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 7 recites “…modulo a prime number…modulo the parameter”; however, this is not clear because the claim recites dual domains with no stated bridge. The claim never states the conversion or reduction rule that makes those dual domains compatible in the claimed operations. Without an explicit mapping step, The Examiner cannot tell what number system governs the relevant multiplications/additions or how values sampled mod “a prime number” are used in computations mod “the parameter”; as a result, the claim appears to depend on an unrecited mathematical choice and as a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 10 recites “…computing…the initial component of the secret seed; providing…the secret seed as input…”; however, this is unclear because the claim framework treats the secret seed as having an initial component, implying it is multi-part. The claim has a step computing the initial component, but then says the obfuscator provides the secret seed to the PUF – and those are different objects (different size/structure). The specification consistently teaches the initial component as the PUF input and never the secret seed, as a result The Examiner is not clear what parts are actually required for the input and how those parts are combined to achieve the claim limitations. In addition, Claim 10 recites “…encoding…public matrix, LPN secret vector, error vector, and PRG input as the LPN encryption…”; however, neither the encoding function nor the resulting encryption object is clearly defined. Also, the claim includes the secret vector as a component of the encryption as a separable field (which is also present in Claim 9); however, this conflicts with the teachings of the specification that has the secret vector algebraically embedded rather than carried as a separable field. As a result, The Examiner is unable to determine with certainty the metes and bounds of the claim language. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 11 recites “…wherein one or more of:…”; however, the claim is written as a “menu” of seven properties, but several properties are themselves not objectively bounded as written and are meaningless without specifying some reference. As a result, the overall scope of the claim is not reasonably certain without importing definitions/constraints from the specification. As a result, The Examiner is unable to determine with certainty the metes and bounds of the claim language. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 12 recites a formula with undefined constant c and logarithms with an unspecified base. The claim is unclear because different values of c or different log bases drastically change the metes and bounds of the formula. As a result, The Examiner is unable to determine with certainty the metes and bounds of the claim language. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 13 recites “…modulo a factor of the prime divisor…”; however, this is unclear because either the claim requires a trivial reduction (mod 1) or uses “factor” in a nonstandard way that does not agree with the specification’s teachings of modulo prime powers – which is different math that has different metes and bounds. As a result, The Examiner is unable to determine with certainty the metes and bounds of the claim language. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, Claim 14 recites “…Boolean PRG in complexity class NC0”; however, this is unclear because the locality constraints/properties of NC0 are not provided – as a result, The Examiner cannot have reasonable certainty which PRGs within the broad NC0 class are actually contemplated for the claimed verification test. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
In addition, claim 16 recites “…using components of the secret seed to recover the output…”; however, this is unclear because the language does not indicate what specific components, how they are used, or what recovery operation is performed. The Examiner asserts “recover” is a result – not a defined method, and based on the claim language one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the boundary of what counts as recovery using components. As a result, The Examiner is unable to determine with certainty the metes and bounds of the claim language. The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
The Examiner asserts the claims themselves must inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty; and while the claims are always read in light of the specification, the specification cannot be used to rewrite, amend, or import missing limitations into the claims.
The numerous 35 USC 112 rejections prevent The Examiner from reasonably searching for the most relevant prior art. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The previous 112 rejections are maintained. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Shaw whose telephone number is ((571)270-5191. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 6:00 AM-3:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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.
/BRIAN F SHAW/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
