Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2023-09-13)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 101 - Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
Claims

1\. A circuit 100 configured to:
\- receive 110 signals of one or more sensors and/or actuators of a computer device;
\- determine 120 one or more statistical properties of the noise distribution of said selected one or more said sensors and/or actuators;
\- receive 131 data IN from one or more external data sources;
\- determine 140 one or more digital signatures from said statistical properties and said selected external data.

2\. The circuit of Claim 1, wherein the circuit is configured to receive data IN 131 and/or communicate data OUT 132 from one or more external data sources.

3\. The circuit of Claim 1, wherein the received data IN calibrates one or more sensors.

4\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein the received data IN comprises information leading directly or indirectly to the disabling of the circuit.

5\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein the received data IN, or parts thereof, serves as or contributes to a challenge of the circuit 100, said circuit 100 providing a response in response to the challenge.

6\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein the received data IN, or parts thereof, signs a challenge of the circuit 100, said circuit 100 providing a response to said challenge.

7\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, further configured to communicate data OUT to one or more third parties, a third party being a computer or a PUF or a SPUF.

8\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein a submitted challenge C modifies and/or controls and/or influences communicated data OUT.

9\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein communicated data OUT modifies a submitted challenge C.

35 10. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein data IN modifies the response R, while or after the response R is produced.

11\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein a response R retroacts on data IN.

12\. The circuit of any preceding Claim, wherein the response R modifies the challenge C.

13\. A system comprising two or more of circuits 100 according any preceding Claim, wherein communicated data OUT of a first circuit is taken as an input data IN by a second circuit.

14\. A system comprising two or more of circuits 100 according any preceding Claim, wherein the response R of a first circuit is taken as an input data IN by a second circuit.

15\. A system comprising two or more of circuits 100 according any preceding Claim, wherein communicated data OUT of a first circuit is taken as a challenge C by a second circuit.

16\. A system comprising two or more of circuits 100 according any preceding Claim, wherein the response R of a first circuit is taken as a challenge C by a second circuit.

17\. A method comprising the steps of:
\- receiving 110 in a circuit 100 signals of one or more sensors and/or actuators of a computer device;
\- determining 120 one or more statistical properties of the noise distribution of said selected one or more of said sensors and/or actuators;
\- receiving 131 data IN from one or more external data sources;
\- determining 140 one or more digital signatures from said statistical properties and said selected external data.

18\. A computer program product comprising instructions for carrying out the steps of the method according to Claim 17 when said computer program is executed on a computer device. 5 10 15 20 25 30

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of priority based on European Patent Application EP18305929.4 filed on July 11, 2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on January 5, 2021. The U.S. patents and Foreign Patents have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on January 5, 2021 have been considered and accepted.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 1 recites the limitations “the noise
distribution” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 1 recites the limitations “said selected external data” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend on the rejected claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 4 recites the limitations “the disabling of the circuit” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 10 recites the limitations “the response R” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 12 recites the limitations “the response R” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 13 discloses a system according to rejected claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 14 discloses “the system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claims 14 recites the limitations “the response R” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 15 discloses “the system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 16 discloses “the system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claims 16 recites the limitations “the response R” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 17 recites the limitations “the noise
distribution” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claim 18 discloses a computer program product according to rejected claim 17.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.  The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because each of the claimed “a computer program product” is a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”), see MPEP 2106.03. The claimed “a computer program product” is not a judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cambou (Pub. No. US 2018/0006830).
Claim 1.	Cambou discloses a circuit configured to:
receive signals of one or more sensors and/or actuators of a computer device
sources (The art teaches in Parag. [0025] that sensor 102 generates an electrical analog
signal corresponding to the detectable signal and provides this analog signal to the ADC 104 (received sensor’s signal), effectively transforming the detectable signal into an electrical analog signal. The ADC 104 converts the analog signal generated by the sensor 102 into a digital signal, which is provided to the digital processor 106. FIG. 1 shows a sensor system 100 (computer device) that includes a sensor 102, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 104, a digital processor 106 having an output 112, a static random access memory (SRAM) cache 110, and a calibration table 108);
determine one or more statistical properties of the noise distribution of said selected
one or more said sensors and/or actuators (The art teaches Parag. [0026] that sensor systems such as the sensor system 100 need to be calibrated with known detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals that produce known (i.e., expected) electrical signals when processed by a sensor such as the sensor 102. Possible calibrations may include determining a reset position (i.e. obtaining a zero as an output signal when no detectable signal parameter is sensed) to correct deviations for accurate reading, and to enhance the linearity of the electric signal. Other corrections that may be part of the calibration process include adjusting temperature coefficients, biasing conditions, and cancelling background noise).
receive data IN from one or more external data sources (The art teaches in Parag.
[0022] that one method of calibration involves performing preliminary calibration of a sensor during manufacture (external source) of the sensor and storing associated calibration data (data IN) in a calibration table. The calibration data is applied to the output signals of the sensor in order to standardize the sensor output signals (e.g., the sensor response) and to ensure the accuracy of the sensor. In this way, the manufacturing variations of individual sensors and their effects on the responses of these sensors are accounted for).
determine one or more digital signatures from said statistical properties and
said selected external data (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses (digital signatures) from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions (Applicant has defined digital signatures as responses (Specification, Page. 2, line 2)).
Claim 2.	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the circuit is configured to receive data IN and/or
communicate data OUT from one or more external data sources (The art teaches in Parag.
[0022] that one method of calibration involves performing preliminary calibration of a sensor during manufacture (external source) of the sensor and storing associated calibration data (data IN) in a calibration table. The calibration data is applied to the output signals of the sensor in order to standardize the sensor output signals (e.g., the sensor response) and to ensure the accuracy of the sensor. In this way, the manufacturing variations of individual sensors and their effects on the responses of these sensors are accounted for).
Claim 3.	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN calibrates one or more sensors (The art teaches in Parag. [0022] that one method of calibration involves performing preliminary  calibration of a sensor during manufacture of the sensor and storing associated calibration data (data IN) in a calibration table. The calibration data is applied to the output signals of the sensor in order to standardize the sensor output signals (e.g., the sensor response) and to ensure the accuracy of the sensor).
Claim 4. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN comprises information leading directly or indirectly to the disabling of the circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that non-sequential extraction of the bit stream (from the calibration table) may further obscure the authorization process, thereby increasing security of the sensor system 400. The PUF challenges are then transferred to the secure terminal 418 and is stored in the secure memory 420 to be used for future authentication of the sensor system 400. Instructions for generating PUF responses are also stored in the secure memory 420. These instructions indicate the order or pattern according to which some or all of the bit stream should be extracted when generating a PUF response to authenticate the sensor system 400. This increases the level of security in case a hacker finds a way through side channel attacks to read the calibration table. With lack of instructions, the hacker faces the difficulty of finding out where to read the responses within the calibration tables, which becomes difficult when the size of the non-volatile memories storing the calibration table is large enough (the instructions (information) is leading indirectly to disabling the circuit, where the hacker won’t be able to read the calibration data (data IN) with lack of instructions)).
Claim 5.	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN, or parts thereof, serves as or contributes to a challenge of the circuit, said circuit providing a response in response to the challenge (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses from the calibration table 408 (data IN) based on the instructions. The PUF generator 416 sends the PUF responses to the secure terminal 418, which compares the PUF responses to the PUF challenges in order to determine if the CPRs match).
Claim 6. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN, or parts thereof, signs a challenge of the circuit, said circuit providing a response to said challenge (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses from the calibration table 408 (data IN) based on the instructions. The PUF generator 416 sends the PUF responses to the secure terminal 418, which compares the PUF responses to the PUF challenges in order to determine if the CPRs match).
Claim 7. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses the circuit further configured to communicate data OUT to one or more third parties, a third party being a computer or a PUF or a SPUF (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream (data OUT communicated to PUF) of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The PUF challenges may be extracted from some or all of the bit stream of the calibration table 408 in any desired order or pattern, not just in the sequential order in which the bit stream is arranged in the calibration table 408).
Claim 8. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein a submitted challenge C modifies and/or controls and/or influences communicated data OUT (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream (data OUT) of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The PUF challenges may be extracted from some or all of the bit stream of the calibration table 408 in any desired order or pattern, not just in the sequential order in which the bit stream is arranged in the calibration table 408).
Claim 9. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein communicated data OUT modifies a submitted challenge C (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream (data OUT) of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The PUF challenges may be extracted from some or all of the bit stream of the calibration table 408 in any desired order or pattern, not just in the sequential order in which the bit stream is arranged in the calibration table 408).
Claim 10. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein data IN modifies the response R, while or after the response R is produced (The art teaches in Parag. [0048] that PUF generator extracts PUF responses from a calibration table in the sensor system according to instructions in the PUF challenge data that was received by the PUF generator from the secure terminal at 610. If desired, the PUF responses may be generated based on only a portion of the calibration data (data IN) stored in the calibration table and/or the calibration data used to generate the PUF responses may be read non-sequentially according to an order defined in the instructions).
Claim 11. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein a response R retroacts on data IN (The art teaches in Parag. [0048] that PUF generator extracts PUF responses from a calibration table in the sensor system according to instructions in the PUF challenge data that was received by the PUF generator from the secure terminal at 610. If desired, the PUF responses may be generated based on only a portion of the calibration data (data IN) stored in the calibration table and/or the calibration data used to generate the PUF responses may be read non-sequentially according to an order defined in the instructions).
Claim 12.	 Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein the response R modifies the challenge C (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that during authentication of the sensor system 400, the secure terminal 418 retrieves PUF challenge data from the secure memory 420. The PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions).
Claim 13. 	Cambou discloses a system comprising two or more of circuits according to Claim 1,
wherein communicated data OUT of a first circuit is taken as an input data IN by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 (data OUT) are fed (taken as an input data IN) into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs. The art teaches in Parag. [0050] that comparator circuitry in the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data).
Claim 14. 	Cambou discloses the system comprising two or more of circuits according to Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein the response R of a first circuit is taken as an input data IN by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 are fed (taken as an input data IN) into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs).
Claim 15.	Cambou discloses the system comprising two or more of circuits according to Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein communicated data OUT of a first circuit is taken as a challenge C by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 (data OUT) are fed into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs. The art teaches in Parag. [0050] that comparator circuitry in the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data (the data OUT is taken as a challenge for comparison)).
Claim 16.	Cambou discloses the system comprising two or more of circuits according to Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein the response R of a first circuit is taken as a challenge C by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 are fed into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs. The art teaches in Parag. [0050] that comparator circuitry in the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data (the response is taken as a challenge for comparison)).
Claim 17.	Cambou discloses a method comprising the steps of:
receiving in a circuit signals of one or more sensors and/or actuators of a computer
device (The art teaches in Parag. [0025] that sensor 102 generates an electrical analog
signal corresponding to the detectable signal and provides this analog signal to the ADC 104 (received sensor’s signal), effectively transforming the detectable signal into an electrical analog signal. The ADC 104 converts the analog signal generated by the sensor 102 into a digital signal, which is provided to the digital processor 106. FIG. 1 shows a sensor system 100 (computer device) that includes a sensor 102, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 104, a digital processor 106 having an output 112, a static random access memory (SRAM) cache 110, and a calibration table 108);
determining one or more statistical properties of the noise distribution of said selected one or more of said sensors and/or actuators (The art teaches Parag. [0026] that sensor systems such as the sensor system 100 need to be calibrated with known detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals that produce known (i.e., expected) electrical signals when processed by a sensor such as the sensor 102. Possible calibrations may include determining a reset position (i.e. obtaining a zero as an output signal when no detectable signal parameter is sensed) to correct deviations for accurate reading, and to enhance the linearity of the electric signal. Other corrections that may be part of the calibration process include adjusting temperature coefficients, biasing conditions, and cancelling background noise).
receiving data IN from one or more external data sources (The art teaches in Parag.
[0022] that one method of calibration involves performing preliminary calibration of a sensor during manufacture (external source) of the sensor and storing associated calibration data in a calibration table (data IN). The calibration data is applied to the output signals of the sensor in order to standardize the sensor output signals (e.g., the sensor response) and to ensure the accuracy of the sensor. In this way, the manufacturing variations of individual sensors and their effects on the responses of these sensors are accounted for).
determining one or more digital signatures from said statistical properties and said selected external data (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that he PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses (digital signatures) from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions (Applicant has defined digital signatures as responses (Specification, Page. 2, line 2)).
Claim 18.	Cambou discloses a computer program product comprising instructions for carrying out the steps of the method according to Claim 17, when said computer program is executed on a computer device (The art teaches in Parag. [0025] that  FIG. 1 shows a sensor system 100 (computer device) that includes a sensor 102, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 104, a digital processor 106 having an output 112, a static random access memory (SRAM) cache 110, and a calibration table 108).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to Connected Synthetic Physically Unclonable Function.
Walsh et al. (Patent No. US 10013543); “System and Service Binding Metadata with Hardware Intrinsic Properties”;
Teaches an authentication system that utilizes the device's enrollment token or public key to verify the device's authenticity, preferably through a zero-knowledge proof. Sensitive metadata is preferably also incorporated into the enrollment token or public key, which may be accomplished through an algorithmic means such as a hash function combining the metadata with hardware-intrinsic (e.g., PUF) data. (See Col. 2, lines 43-50).

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS Claims 1-18 are pending, with claims 1 and 17 being independent. Claims 1-18 stand rejected. Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-17 are amended herein. Claim 18 is cancelled herein. No new subject matter has been added. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Office Action, at 2. Applicant has amended the claims to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), second paragraph. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to non- statutory subject matter. Office Action, at 4. Claim 18 has been cancelled. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0006830 (hereinafter "Cambou"). Office Action, at 4. In order for a reference to anticipate a claim, the reference must teach each and every feature of the claim. Here, the Office Action has not shown that a single reference teaches each and every feature of the claims. Without conceding the propriety of the rejection, Applicant has amended claim 1. Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "PUF circuit comprising one or more sensors, the PUF circuit comprising a processor configured to receive information about a subset of sensor components of a sensor, the PUF circuit being configured to apply one or more challenges to the subset of sensor components under uniform conditions, the PUF circuit comprising a receiver configured to receive output signal values from the subset of sensor components, in response to a challenge applied to said subset of sensor components." Support for this amendment to claim 1 can be found throughout Applicant's specification, in at least lines 20-36 of page 5. Independent claim 1 further recites, "the PUF circuit comprises a data communication channel." Support for this amendment to claim 1 can be found throughout Applicant's specification, in at least line 24 of page 7. Support for the feature "one or more statistical properties of the noise distribution of said output signal values," of amended claim 1 can be found throughout Applicant's specification, in at least lines 22 and 30 of page 5 and line 10 of page 6. Support for the feature "determine a response to the challenge from said statistical properties and selected input data IN received from said one or more external data sources, said response being a digital signature," of amended claim 1 can be found throughout Applicant's specification, in at least lines 9-24 of page 14. Support for the feature "wherein the input Data IN are used to handle the PUF circuit" of amended claim 1 can be found throughout Applicant's specification, in at least lines 14-15 of page 13. Similar amendments have been made to independent claim 17. Applicant has also amended the dependent claims. Support for the amendments to claims 2 and 7 can be found throughout Applicant's specification, in at least lines 3-7 of page 10. Amended claim 1 recites, in part, "A PUF circuit . .. [that] comprises a data communication channel, and the PUF circuit is configured to: determine one or more statistical properties of a noise distribution of said output signal values; receive input data IN from one or more external data sources using the data communication channel; [and] determine a response R to said one or more challenges from said statistical properties and said selected input data IN received from said one or more external data sources, said response being a digital signature, wherein the input Data IN are used to handle of the PUF circuit." Cambou does not teach or suggest at least these features of amended independent claim 1. Rather, Cambou describes a solution that intends to improve the cybersecurity of sensor based systems using PUFs and aims to exploit the natural physical variations of sensors, to generate cryptographic physically unclonable functions (PUF). More specifically, Cambou describes a system comprising: a secure terminal having a secure memory that stores PUF challenge data that includes instructions and a set of PUF challenges; a sensor system comprising a sensor operable to measure detectable signals and a calibration table that stores calibration data for the sensor; and a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator connected to the calibration table that receives the PUF challenge data from the secure terminal and that generates a set of PUF responses from the calibration data stored in the calibration table according to the instructions in the PUF challenge data. Cambou's detectable signals are physical signals and chemical signals. Cambou describes a first architecture based on the extraction of a stream of bits from the calibration table of each sensor to generate reference patterns (PUF challenges), which can be stored in secure servers. The authentication of the sensor is positive when the data streams that are generated on demand, called PUF responses, match the challenges. Cambou further describes s a second authentication architecture that is disclosed is based on differential sensors, one of them having the calibration module disconnected. The response to a physical or chemical signal from such a sensor is then used to authenticate a specific pair of sensors. Though Cambou refers to PUF generation using sensors, both the first and the second architecture of Cambou are quite different from amended claim 1. In particular, none of these architectures uses "[a] PUF circuit . .. [that] comprises a data communication channel, and the PUF circuit is configured to: determine one or more statistical properties of a noise distribution of said output signal values; receive input data IN from one or more external data sources using the data communication channel; [and] determine a response R to said one or more challenges from said statistical properties and said selected input data IN received from said one or more external data sources, said response being a digital signature, wherein the input Data IN are used to handle of the PUF circuit," as claimed. The claimed circuit provides a Synthetic PUF (designated in the specification by acronym "SPUF") by using a synthetic or composite assembly of sensors selected for the statistical properties of the distribution of their noise. The above noted features of claim 1 enable the synthetic PUF circuit to produce its response. The synthetic PUF itself stems from a particular selection of available components found in a computer device and from a specific manipulation performed on the statistical properties of the noise distribution of the selection. This enables providing stabilized responses, reinforcing of unclonability, and improved controllability of PUF devices. The skilled person trying to solve such problems would have been incited to implement the method of Cambou, which generates a unique response to a physically unclonable function equipped with challengeable memories using the same challenge signal, thereby not arriving at the claimed circuit. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Cambou to solve such problem, as Cambou relates to a totally different PUF architecture. Because the Office Action fails to show that a single reference teaches each and every feature of amended claim 1, amended claim 1 is patentable and the rejection under Section 102 should be withdrawn. Because amended independent claim 17 recites features that are similar, albeit not identical, to the features recited in amended independent claim 1, Applicant submits that independent claim 17 is patentable for at least the same reasons as those submitted for independent claim 1. Because dependent claims 2-17 depend, either directly or indirectly from one of independent claims 1 and 17, they too are patentable for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 17, as well as for the additional features they recite. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 102 rejection of these dependent claims is also respectfully requested. CONCLUSION Applicant respectfully submits that the present application is in condition for allowance. Reconsideration of the application and an early Notice of Allowance are respectfully requested. In the event that the Examiner cannot allow the application for any reason, the Examiner is encouraged to contact Applicant's representative. Date: 12/6/2023SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.122.917Katharine Y. Domitrovich Registration No. 77,712 BakerHostetler 999 Third Avenue Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206.332.1380 Facsimile: 206.624.7317

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of priority based on European Patent Application EP18305929.4 filed on July 11, 2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on February 6, 2024. The U.S. patents and Foreign Patents have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to communications received on December 7, 2023.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-17 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been canceled.
Applicant’s amendment and response to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 (b) and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the previous office action. The examiner has withdrawn the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 7, 2023, have been fully considered, but they are not all persuasive.
As per the prior art rejection of claim 1 in page 6-9, applicant argues that Cambou does not teach or suggest at least these features of amended independent claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Cambou discloses a PUF circuit comprising one or more sensors, the PUF circuit comprising a processor configured to receive information about a subset of sensor components of a sensor, the PUF circuit being configured to apply one or more challenges to the subset of sensor components under uniform conditions; the PUF circuit comprising a receiver configured to receive output signal values from the subset of sensor components, in response to a challenge applied to said subset of sensor components, wherein the PUF circuit comprises a data communication channel (The art teaches in Parag. [0033] and FIG. 4 a sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs. The sensor system 400 includes a sensor 402, an ADC 404, a digital processor 406, a calibration able 408 (The calibration tables each store calibration data for corresponding sensors, see Parag. [0032]), a SRAM cache 410, and a PUF generator 416. The PUF generator 416 is connected to both the digital processor 406 and the calibration table 408. The art teaches in Parag. [0034] that “secure terminal” refers to a device (e.g., computer hardware) connected to a computer network that uses PUF verification (e.g., PUF verification performed using sensor system 400. The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that sensor system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The sensor system 400 is connected to a secure terminal 418 which is connected to a secure memory 420), and the PUF circuit is configured to:
determine one or more statistical properties of a noise distribution of said output signal values (The art teaches Parag. [0026] that sensor systems such as the sensor system 100 need to be calibrated with known detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals that produce known (i.e., expected) electrical signals when processed by a sensor such as the sensor 102. Possible calibrations may include determining a reset position (i.e. obtaining a zero as an output signal when no detectable signal parameter is sensed) to correct deviations for accurate reading, and to enhance the linearity of the electric signal. Other corrections that may be part of the calibration process include adjusting temperature coefficients, biasing conditions, and cancelling background noise);
receive input data IN from one or more external data sources using the data
communication channel (The art teaches in Parag. [0029] at 230, a processor generates calibration data by comparing the sensor data to the expected results associated with the known detectable signals. The art teaches in Parag. [0030] at 240, the calibration data is stored in a calibration table in non-volatile memory of the sensor system. The processor may be a digital processor that is external to the sensor system (the input data is received from an external data source through a communication channel));
determine a response R to said one or more challenges from said statistical properties and said selected input data IN received from said one or more external data sources, said response being a digital signature, wherein the input Data IN are used to handle of the PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses (digital signatures) from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions. The art teaches in Parag. [0033] that sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 17, line 8, “the noise distribution” should read “a noise distribution.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cambou (Pub. No. US 2018/0006830).
Claim 1.	Cambou discloses a PUF circuit comprising one or more sensors, the PUF circuit comprising a processor configured to receive information about a subset of sensor components of a sensor, the PUF circuit being configured to apply one or more challenges to the subset of sensor components under uniform conditions; the PUF circuit comprising a receiver configured to receive output signal values from the subset of sensor components, in response to a challenge applied to said subset of sensor components, wherein the PUF circuit comprises a data communication channel (The art teaches in Parag. [0033] and FIG. 4 a sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs. The sensor system 400 includes a sensor 402, an ADC 404, a digital processor 406, a calibration able 408 (The calibration tables each store calibration data for corresponding sensors, see Parag. [0032]), a SRAM cache 410, and a PUF generator 416. The PUF generator 416 is connected to both the digital processor 406 and the calibration table 408. The art teaches in Parag. [0034] that “secure terminal” refers to a device (e.g., computer hardware) connected to a computer network that uses PUF verification (e.g., PUF verification performed using sensor system 400. The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that sensor system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The sensor system 400 is connected to a secure terminal 418 which is connected to a secure memory 420), and the PUF circuit is configured to:
determine one or more statistical properties of a noise distribution of said output signal values (The art teaches Parag. [0026] that sensor systems such as the sensor system 100 need to be calibrated with known detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals that produce known (i.e., expected) electrical signals when processed by a sensor such as the sensor 102. Possible calibrations may include determining a reset position (i.e. obtaining a zero as an output signal when no detectable signal parameter is sensed) to correct deviations for accurate reading, and to enhance the linearity of the electric signal. Other corrections that may be part of the calibration process include adjusting temperature coefficients, biasing conditions, and cancelling background noise);
receive input data IN from one or more external data sources using the data
communication channel (The art teaches in Parag. [0029] at 230, a processor generates calibration data by comparing the sensor data to the expected results associated with the known detectable signals. The art teaches in Parag. [0030] at 240, the calibration data is stored in a calibration table in non-volatile memory of the sensor system. The processor may be a digital processor that is external to the sensor system (the input data is received from an external data source through a communication channel));
determine a response R to said one or more challenges from said statistical properties and said selected input data IN received from said one or more external data sources, said response being a digital signature, wherein the input Data IN are used to handle of the PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses (digital signatures) from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions. The art teaches in Parag. [0033] that sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs).
Claim 2.	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the circuit is configured to communicate data OUT
to one or more external entities using said data communication channel (The art teaches in Parag. [0022] that one method of calibration involves performing preliminary calibration of a sensor during manufacture of the sensor and storing associated calibration data (data IN) in a calibration table. The calibration data is applied to the output signals of the sensor in order to standardize the sensor output signals (e.g., the sensor response) and to ensure the accuracy of the sensor. In this way, the manufacturing variations of individual sensors and their effects on the responses of these sensors are accounted for).
Claim 3.	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN calibrates said one or more sensors (The art teaches in Parag. [0022] that one method of calibration involves performing preliminary  calibration of a sensor during manufacture of the sensor and storing associated calibration data (data IN) in a calibration table. The calibration data is applied to the output signals of the sensor in order to standardize the sensor output signals (e.g., the sensor response) and to ensure the accuracy of the sensor).
Claim 4. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN comprises information leading directly or indirectly to disabling of the PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that non-sequential extraction of the bit stream (from the calibration table) may further obscure the authorization process, thereby increasing security of the sensor system 400. The PUF challenges are then transferred to the secure terminal 418 and is stored in the secure memory 420 to be used for future authentication of the sensor system 400. Instructions for generating PUF responses are also stored in the secure memory 420. These instructions indicate the order or pattern according to which some or all of the bit stream should be extracted when generating a PUF response to authenticate the sensor system 400. This increases the level of security in case a hacker finds a way through side channel attacks to read the calibration table. With lack of instructions, the hacker faces the difficulty of finding out where to read the responses within the calibration tables, which becomes difficult when the size of the non-volatile memories storing the calibration table is large enough (the instructions (information) is leading indirectly to disabling the circuit, where the hacker won’t be able to read the calibration data (data IN) with lack of instructions)).
Claim 5.	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN, or parts thereof, serves as or contributes to a challenge of the PUF circuit, said circuit providing a response in response to said one or more challenges (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses from the calibration table 408 (data IN) based on the instructions. The PUF generator 416 sends the PUF responses to the secure terminal 418, which compares the PUF responses to the PUF challenges in order to determine if the CPRs match).
Claim 6. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further discloses wherein the received data IN, or parts thereof, signs a challenge of the PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses from the calibration table 408 (data IN) based on the instructions. The PUF generator 416 sends the PUF responses to the secure terminal 418, which compares the PUF responses to the PUF challenges in order to determine if the CPRs match).
Claim 7. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 2,
Cambou further discloses the circuit wherein said at least one external entities comprise at least one computer or another PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream (data OUT communicated to PUF) of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The PUF challenges may be extracted from some or all of the bit stream of the calibration table 408 in any desired order or pattern, not just in the sequential order in which the bit stream is arranged in the calibration table 408).
Claim 8. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein an applied challenge C modifies and/or controls and/or influences communicated data OUT (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream (data OUT) of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The PUF challenges may be extracted from some or all of the bit stream of the calibration table 408 in any desired order or pattern, not just in the sequential order in which the bit stream is arranged in the calibration table 408).
Claim 9. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein communicated data OUT modifies an applied challenge C (The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream (data OUT) of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The PUF challenges may be extracted from some or all of the bit stream of the calibration table 408 in any desired order or pattern, not just in the sequential order in which the bit stream is arranged in the calibration table 408).
Claim 10. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein data IN modifies the response R, while or after the response R is produced (The art teaches in Parag. [0048] that PUF generator extracts PUF responses from a calibration table in the sensor system according to instructions in the PUF challenge data that was received by the PUF generator from the secure terminal at 610. If desired, the PUF responses may be generated based on only a portion of the calibration data (data IN) stored in the calibration table and/or the calibration data used to generate the PUF responses may be read non-sequentially according to an order defined in the instructions).
Claim 11. 	Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein the response R retroacts on data IN (The art teaches in Parag. [0048] that PUF generator extracts PUF responses from a calibration table in the sensor system according to instructions in the PUF challenge data that was received by the PUF generator from the secure terminal at 610. If desired, the PUF responses may be generated based on only a portion of the calibration data (data IN) stored in the calibration table and/or the calibration data used to generate the PUF responses may be read non-sequentially according to an order defined in the instructions).
Claim 12.	 Cambou discloses the circuit of Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose wherein the response R modifies the challenge C (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that during authentication of the sensor system 400, the secure terminal 418 retrieves PUF challenge data from the secure memory 420. The PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions).
Claim 13. 	Cambou discloses a system comprising two or more PUF circuits according to Claim 1,
The PUFs circuit comprising a first PUF circuit and a second PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0040] that a multi-PUF architecture may be used that uses both the calibration table 408 and the SRAM cache 410 as sources for PUF challenges and PUF responses, rather than the single PUF architecture described above, which only uses the calibration table 408); wherein communicated data OUT of a first circuit is taken as an input data IN by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 (data OUT) are fed (taken as an input data IN) into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs. The art teaches in Parag. [0050] that comparator circuitry in the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data).
Claim 14. 	Cambou discloses a system comprising two or more PUF circuits according to Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose the PUFs circuits comprising a first PUF circuit and a second PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0040] that a multi-PUF architecture may be used that uses both the calibration table 408 and the SRAM cache 410 as sources for PUF challenges and PUF responses, rather than the single PUF architecture described above, which only uses the calibration table 408); wherein the response R of a first circuit is taken as an input data IN by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 are fed (taken as an input data IN) into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs).
Claim 15.	Cambou discloses a system comprising two or more PUF circuits according to Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose the PUFs circuits comprising a first PUF circuit and a second PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0040] that a multi-PUF architecture may be used that uses both the calibration table 408 and the SRAM cache 410 as sources for PUF challenges and PUF responses, rather than the single PUF architecture described above, which only uses the calibration table 408); wherein communicated data OUT of a first circuit is taken as a challenge C by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 (data OUT) are fed into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs. The art teaches in Parag. [0050] that comparator circuitry in the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data (the data OUT is taken as a challenge for comparison)).
Claim 16.	Cambou discloses a system comprising two or more PUF circuits according to Claim 1,
Cambou further disclose the PUFs circuits comprising a first PUF circuit and a second PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0040] that a multi-PUF architecture may be used that uses both the calibration table 408 and the SRAM cache 410 as sources for PUF challenges and PUF responses, rather than the single PUF architecture described above, which only uses the calibration table 408); wherein the response R of a first circuit is taken as a challenge C by a second circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0045] that PUF challenge data 502 includes instructions 510 and calibration table based PUF challenges 512. PUF response data 504 includes PUF responses 514 that are generated according to instructions 510 (e.g., at PUF generator 416). The PUF challenges 512 and the PUF responses 514 are fed into comparator 506 (second circuit) as CRPs. The art teaches in Parag. [0050] that comparator circuitry in the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data (the response is taken as a challenge for comparison)).
Claim 17. 	Cambou discloses a method for generating a digital signature, the method being implemented by a PUF circuit comprising one or more sensors, the method comprising receiving information about a subset of sensor components of a sensor, applying one or more challenges to the subset of sensor components under uniform conditions, and receiving output signal values from the subset of sensor components, in response to a challenge applied to said subset of sensor components (The art teaches in Parag. [0033] and FIG. 4 a sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs. The sensor system 400 includes a sensor 402, an ADC 404, a digital processor 406, a calibration able 408 (The calibration tables each store calibration data for corresponding sensors, see Parag. [0032]), a SRAM cache 410, and a PUF generator 416. The PUF generator 416 is connected to both the digital processor 406 and the calibration table 408. The art teaches in Parag. [0034] that “secure terminal” refers to a device (e.g., computer hardware) connected to a computer network that uses PUF verification (e.g., PUF verification performed using sensor system 400. The art teaches in Parag. [0038] that sensor system 400 is configured as a single-PUF system that uses only data from the calibration table 408 as a basis for PUF CRP generation, the PUF generator 416 initially generates one or more PUF challenges using the bit stream of calibration data stored in the calibration table 408. The sensor system 400 is connected to a secure terminal 418 which is connected to a secure memory 420), wherein method comprises:
determining one or more statistical properties of the noise distribution of said output signal values (The art teaches Parag. [0026] that sensor systems such as the sensor system 100 need to be calibrated with known detectable (e.g., physical or chemical) signals that produce known (i.e., expected) electrical signals when processed by a sensor such as the sensor 102. Possible calibrations may include determining a reset position (i.e. obtaining a zero as an output signal when no detectable signal parameter is sensed) to correct deviations for accurate reading, and to enhance the linearity of the electric signal. Other corrections that may be part of the calibration process include adjusting temperature coefficients, biasing conditions, and cancelling background noise);
receiving input data IN from one or more external data sources using the data communication channel (The art teaches in Parag. [0029] at 230, a processor generates calibration data by comparing the sensor data to the expected results associated with the known detectable signals. The art teaches in Parag. [0030] at 240, the calibration data is stored in a calibration table in non-volatile memory of the sensor system. The processor may be a digital processor that is external to the sensor system (the input data is received from an external data source through a communication channel));
determining a response to the challenge from said statistical properties and selected input data IN received from said one or more external data sources, said response being a digital signature, wherein the input Data IN are used to handle of the PUF circuit (The art teaches in Parag. [0039] that PUF challenge data includes both the instructions for PUF response generation and the PUF challenges that were initially generated while setting up the initial cryptographic protocol for the sensor system 400. The instructions are sent to the PUF generator 416, which then extracts one or more PUF responses (digital signatures) from the calibration table 408 based on the instructions. The art teaches in Parag. [0033] that sensor system 400 that can be authenticated using calibration table based PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs) alone or in combination with SRAM based PUF CRPs).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to Physically Unclonable Functions.
Tuyls (Pub. No. US 2012/0179952); “Physically Unclonable Function with Tamper Prevention and Anti-aging;”
Teaches Methods and systems for configuring computing devices using mobile workspace contexts based on proximity to locations (see Abstract).
Teaches a system for generating an identifying response pattern (see Parag. [0001]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20180006830A1: Claims:
A system comprising: a secure terminal having a secure memory that stores PUF challenge data that includes instructions and a set of PUF challenges; and a sensor system comprising: a sensor operable to measure detectable signals; a calibration table that stores calibration data for the sensor; and a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator connected to the calibration table that receives the PUF challenge data from the secure terminal and that generates a set of PUF responses from the calibration data stored in the calibration table according to the instructions in the PUF challenge data.
a secure terminal having a secure memory that stores PUF challenge data that includes instructions and a set of PUF challenges; and
a sensor system comprising: a sensor operable to measure detectable signals; a calibration table that stores calibration data for the sensor; and a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator connected to the calibration table that receives the PUF challenge data from the secure terminal and that generates a set of PUF responses from the calibration data stored in the calibration table according to the instructions in the PUF challenge data.
a sensor operable to measure detectable signals;
a calibration table that stores calibration data for the sensor; and
a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator connected to the calibration table that receives the PUF challenge data from the secure terminal and that generates a set of PUF responses from the calibration data stored in the calibration table according to the instructions in the PUF challenge data.
The system of claim 1 , wherein the detectable signals are selected from the group consisting of physical signals and chemical signals.
The system of claim 1 , wherein the secure terminal includes comparator circuitry that compares the set of PUF responses to the set of PUF challenges to determine a rate at which the set of PUF responses and the set of PUF challenges match.
The system of claim 3 , wherein the comparator circuitry comprises exclusive-OR logic gates.
The system of claim 3 , wherein the secure terminal authenticates the sensor system when the secure terminal determines that the rate at which the set of PUF responses and the set of PUF challenges match is at or above a predetermined threshold.
The system of claim 3 , wherein the sensor system further comprises: a random access memory (RAM) cache comprising a plurality of RAM cells.
a random access memory (RAM) cache comprising a plurality of RAM cells.
The system of claim 6 , wherein the PUF generator generates an additional set of PUF responses based on a percentage of the plurality of RAM cells that are in an ON state after powering on the RAM cache.
The system of claim 7 , wherein the PUF challenge data includes an additional set of PUF challenges, and wherein the comparator circuitry compares the additional set of PUF responses to the additional set of PUF challenges to determine an additional rate at which the additional set of PUF responses and the additional set of PUF challenges match.
The system of claim 8 , wherein the secure terminal authenticates the sensor system when the secure terminal determines that the rate at which the set of PUF responses and the set of PUF challenges match is at or above a predetermined threshold and that the additional rate at which the additional set of PUF responses and the additional set of PUF challenges match is at or above the predetermined threshold.
A system comprising: a signal source that produces detectable signals; a secure terminal having a secure memory that stores physically unclonable function (PUF) challenge data; and a sensor system comprising: a calibration table that stores calibration data; a first sensor that converts the detectable signals into calibrated sensor data according to the calibration data; a second sensor that converts the detectable signals into uncalibrated sensor data; and a PUF generator that generates PUF responses by performing logical exclusive-or (XOR) operations on the calibrated sensor data and the uncalibrated sensor data, wherein the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to authenticate the sensor system.
a signal source that produces detectable signals;
a secure terminal having a secure memory that stores physically unclonable function (PUF) challenge data; and
a sensor system comprising: a calibration table that stores calibration data; a first sensor that converts the detectable signals into calibrated sensor data according to the calibration data; a second sensor that converts the detectable signals into uncalibrated sensor data; and a PUF generator that generates PUF responses by performing logical exclusive-or (XOR) operations on the calibrated sensor data and the uncalibrated sensor data, wherein the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to authenticate the sensor system.
a calibration table that stores calibration data;
a first sensor that converts the detectable signals into calibrated sensor data according to the calibration data;
a second sensor that converts the detectable signals into uncalibrated sensor data; and
a PUF generator that generates PUF responses by performing logical exclusive-or (XOR) operations on the calibrated sensor data and the uncalibrated sensor data, wherein the secure terminal compares the PUF responses to corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to authenticate the sensor system.
The system of claim 10 , wherein the detectable signals are selected from the group consisting of physical signals and chemical signals.
The system of claim 10 , wherein the secure terminal includes a comparator, and wherein comparing the PUF responses to the corresponding PUF challenges is performed by the comparator to determine a rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match.
The system of claim 12 , wherein the comparator circuitry comprises exclusive-OR logic gates.
The system of claim 12 , wherein the secure terminal authenticates the sensor system when the secure terminal determines that the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match is at or above a predetermined threshold.
A method for authenticating a sensor system comprising: with a secure terminal, issuing physically unclonable function (PUF) challenge data to the sensor system; with a PUF generator in the sensor system, generating PUF responses from calibration data in a calibration table in the sensor system; with the PUF generator, sending the PUF responses to the secure terminal; and with the secure terminal, comparing the PUF responses with corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to determine a rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match.
with a secure terminal, issuing physically unclonable function (PUF) challenge data to the sensor system;
with a PUF generator in the sensor system, generating PUF responses from calibration data in a calibration table in the sensor system;
with the PUF generator, sending the PUF responses to the secure terminal; and
with the secure terminal, comparing the PUF responses with corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to determine a rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match.
The method of claim 15 , further comprising: with the secure terminal, authenticating the sensor system when the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match is at or above a predetermined threshold.
with the secure terminal, authenticating the sensor system when the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match is at or above a predetermined threshold.
The method of claim 16 , wherein the PUF challenge data further comprises instructions, wherein the PUF responses are generated according to the instructions in the PUF challenge data.
The method of claim 16 , wherein the calibration data is for calibrating the output of a sensor in the sensor system.
The method of claim 16 , wherein comparing the PUF responses with the corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to determine the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match further comprises: with exclusive-OR (XOR) logic in comparator circuitry in the secure terminal, comparing the PUF responses with the corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data by performing XOR logic operations on the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges to determine the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match
with exclusive-OR (XOR) logic in comparator circuitry in the secure terminal, comparing the PUF responses with the corresponding PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data by performing XOR logic operations on the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges to determine the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match
The method of claim 15 , further comprising: with the PUF generator, generating additional PUF responses based on a percentage of random access memory (RAM) cells in a RAM cache that are in an ON state when the RAM cache is powered on; with the secure terminal, comparing the additional PUF responses with corresponding additional PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to determine an additional rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match; and with the secure terminal, authenticating the sensor system when the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match and the additional rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match are each at or above a predetermined threshold.
with the PUF generator, generating additional PUF responses based on a percentage of random access memory (RAM) cells in a RAM cache that are in an ON state when the RAM cache is powered on;
with the secure terminal, comparing the additional PUF responses with corresponding additional PUF challenges in the PUF challenge data to determine an additional rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match; and
with the secure terminal, authenticating the sensor system when the rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match and the additional rate at which the PUF responses and the corresponding PUF challenges match are each at or above a predetermined threshold.
Ref US10013543B2: Claims:
A multi-factor authentication device for binding metadata with hardware-intrinsic properties, the device comprising: a hardware root of trust constructed to generate a value characteristic to hardware-intrinsic properties of the hardware root of trust; and at least one processor connected to the hardware root of trust configured to: generate a binding value by combining device enrollment parameters associated with the device and first metadata associated with the device; communicate the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust and receive an output value from the hardware root of trust; and communicate, an authentication token for authentication, wherein the authentication token is generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
a hardware root of trust constructed to generate a value characteristic to hardware-intrinsic properties of the hardware root of trust; and
at least one processor connected to the hardware root of trust configured to: generate a binding value by combining device enrollment parameters associated with the device and first metadata associated with the device; communicate the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust and receive an output value from the hardware root of trust; and communicate, an authentication token for authentication, wherein the authentication token is generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
generate a binding value by combining device enrollment parameters associated with the device and first metadata associated with the device;
communicate the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust and receive an output value from the hardware root of trust; and
communicate, an authentication token for authentication, wherein the authentication token is generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
The device of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is configured to create the authentication token and incorporate second metadata having at least some different metadata than the first metadata.
The device of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform a zero knowledge proof based on verifying a sensor or sensor output, in response to an authentication request from an external verifying entity.
The device of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform a zero knowledge proof based on the authentication token incorporating the second metadata.
The device of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to communicate the second metadata to a verifier configured to verify of an origin of the second metadata through the zero knowledge proof.
The device of claim 1 , wherein the hardware root of trust includes an SRAM physical unclonable function (PUF).
The device of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to access at least a portion of the first metadata or derive the at least a portion of the first metadata from a biometric sensor.
The device of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to access at least a portion of the second metadata or derive the at least a portion of the second metadata from one or more environmental sensors.
A computer implemented method for binding metadata with hardware-intrinsic properties, the method comprising: generating, by a hardware root of trust, a value characteristic to hardware-intrinsic properties of the hardware root of trust; generating, by at least one processor, a binding value from device enrollment parameters associated with an authentication device and first metadata associated with the authentication device; communicating, by the at least one processor, the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust; receiving, by the at least one processor, an output value from the hardware root of trust; and communicating , by the at least one processor, an authentication token for authentication, generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
generating, by a hardware root of trust, a value characteristic to hardware-intrinsic properties of the hardware root of trust;
generating, by at least one processor, a binding value from device enrollment parameters associated with an authentication device and first metadata associated with the authentication device;
communicating, by the at least one processor, the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust;
receiving, by the at least one processor, an output value from the hardware root of trust; and
communicating , by the at least one processor, an authentication token for authentication, generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
The method of claim 9 , further comprising an act of creating the authentication token as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata having at least some different metadata than the first metadata.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises performing a zero knowledge proof based on verifying a sensor or sensor output, in response to an authentication request from an external verifying entity.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises performing a zero knowledge proof based on the authentication token incorporating the second metadata.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises communicating the second metadata to a verifier, and proving an origin of the second metadata through the zero knowledge proof.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises accessing the second metadata from one or more sensors connected to the multi-factor authentication device.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises accessing at least a portion of the first metadata or derive the at least a portion of the first metadata from a biometric sensor.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises accessing or deriving at least a portion of the second metadata from one or more environment sensors.
The method of claim 9 , wherein the hardware root of trust includes a physical unclonable function (‘PUF’) circuit, and the method further comprising generating, by the PUF, an output value that is characteristic to the PUF.
At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, perform a method for binding metadata with hardware-intrinsic properties, the method comprising: generating a value characteristic to hardware-intrinsic properties of a hardware root of trust; generating a binding value from device enrollment parameters associated with an authentication device and first metadata associated with the authentication device; communicating the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust; receiving an output value from the hardware root of trust; and communicate an authentication token for authentication, generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
generating a value characteristic to hardware-intrinsic properties of a hardware root of trust;
generating a binding value from device enrollment parameters associated with an authentication device and first metadata associated with the authentication device;
communicating the binding value for input to the hardware root of trust;
receiving an output value from the hardware root of trust; and
communicate an authentication token for authentication, generated as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata.
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 , wherein creating the authentication token as a function of the output value and incorporating second metadata includes incorporating second metadata having at least some different metadata than the first metadata.
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 , wherein the method further comprises performing a zero knowledge proof including the second metadata in response to an authentication request from an external verifying entity.
Ref EP18305929: [content unavailable]
Ref US20180006830: Claims:
1. A system comprising:
a secure terminal having a secure memory that stores PUF challenge data that includes instructions and a set of PUF challenges; and a sensor system comprising:
a sensor operable to measure detectable signals;
a calibration table that stores calibration data for the sensor; and
a physically unclonable function (PUF) generator connected to the calibration table that receives the PUF challenge data from the secure terminal and that generates a set of PUF responses from the calibration data stored in the calibration table according to the instructions in the PUF challenge data.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the detectable signals are selected from the group consisting of physical signals and chemical signals.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the secure terminal includes comparator circuitry that compares the set of PUF responses to the set of PUF challenges to determine a rate at which the set of PUF responses and the set of PUF challenges match.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the comparator circuitry comprises exclusive-OR logic gates.
5. The system of claim 3, wherein the secure terminal authenticates the sensor system when the secure terminal de
[Truncated to input limit]