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
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 10/2/2025. The instant application has claims 1-13 pending. The method and system for generating an random number using symbols of pools of first object. There a total of 13 claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments relating to 112 rejection is not persuasive, as it still has the term “substantially” which renders the claim indefinite as metes and bounds of the term is unclear. That is, the “substantially” could have different meaning to different persons , e.g. 90% identical is substantial to one person, while an different person might interpret substantial to mean 60% identical.
The applicant arguments relating to 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The steps can be performed by human on an generic computer and it relates to an mathematical algorithm. That is, it is an abstract idea with no “significantly more” steps.
The applicant’s argument relating to integrated into a practical application is not persuasive. There are several court cases that illustrate a practical concept is still deemed abstract idea and ineligible by Fed. Circuit Court. The examples include device profiles for imaging device, playing bingo, or guarantee online transaction, data analysis on documents. See Digitech Image Tech's v. Electronics For Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Content Extraction and Transmission. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The applicant recent amendments do not add new subject matter to the claims, as claim 3 and 19 already recites the generating an key with the random number as was rejected previous office action.
Nevertheless, Zhang discloses the seed values being used to generate an random number and afterward which is used to generate an key see Col 5 Ln 6-38 & Col 6 Ln 56-65 & Col 6 LN 36-55.
The applicant’s argument relating to 35 USC 103 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues that Zhang does not teach an entropy pool(first objects) is fed with second symbols from an group of connected objects.
Zhang discloses plurality of entropy sources that is used to generate an key see Fig.1 item 150N, 151. That is, an group of connected devices on the network is used to generate an entropy seed that is further used to generate a pseudo-random number see Col 3 Ln 44-64. Zhang further discloses an one or more entropy sources to be used for generating an seed see Col 11 Ln 57-58 & Col 10 Ln 11-14.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 26-31 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: as mentioned in Restriction Requirement of 1/17/2025, the claims relate to an second object in a group requesting random data; selection by the first object the entropy symbols; sending by the first object the entropy symbols; and the receiving by the entropy symbols by the first object from an third object that is distinct and independent from current claims/invention. That is, the interactions between first object with second object and third object and also adding the received symbols from an third object is not present in previously present claims. And additionally, the claims start with second object requesting data which is not present in Group I. Furthermore, the new dependent claims also do not share parallelism with previously presented Group I, that is subject matter of claim 30-31 is not found in Group I, from restriction requirement of 1/17/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 20-25 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites using an symbols to hash function for generating a random seed that is further used to generate an cryptographic key, i.e. number.
The limitation of “selecting, by a first object, first symbols from an entropy pool of the first object, wherein the first object is an object of a group of mutually connected objects which are substantially identical, and wherein the entropy pool is fed with second symbols by objects of the group of mutually connected objects” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “selecting, by a first object, first symbols from an entropy pool of the first object, wherein the first object is an object of a group of mutually connected objects which are substantially identical, and wherein the entropy pool is fed with second symbols by objects of the group of mutually connected objects in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually selecting the light output via lumens from the street lights. Similarly, the limitation of “ applying, by the first object, a hash function to the first symbols to generate a random seed”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) Federal Register January 7, 2019. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “applying, by the first object, a hash function to the first symbols to generate a random seed” in the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating on pen and paper the hash for generating an random seed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” & “ “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform both “selecting, by a first object, first symbols from an entropy pool of the first object, wherein the first object is an object of a group of mutually connected objects which are substantially identical, and wherein the entropy pool is fed with second symbols by objects of the group of mutually connected objects” and “the applying, by the first object, a hash function to the first symbols to generate a random seed” steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of calculating manually the hash using entropy symbols like light luminosity see Spec. Par. 0119) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform calculating manually the hash using entropy symbols like light intensity steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In the instant invention, claim is directed toward using an hash function on first symbols to generate an random seed which represents an mathematical algorithm or general concept see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) citations below.
2106.04(a)(2) Examples of Concepts The Courts Have Identified As Abstract Ideas [R-08.2017]
IV. "MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS/FORMULAS"
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase "mathematical relationships/formulas" is used to describe mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations. The courts have used the term "algorithm" to refer to both mathematical procedures and mathematical formulas, including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); and a series of steps for analyzing clinical data to ascertain the existence and identity of an medical abnormality, and possible causes thereof. In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("It is of no moment that the algorithm is not expressed in terms of a mathematical formula. Words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.").
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the past, the Supreme Court sometimes described mathematical concepts as laws of nature, and at other times described these concepts as judicial exceptions without specifying a particular type of exception. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 65, 175 USPQ2d at 674; Flook, 437 U.S. at 589, 198 USPQ2d at 197. More recent opinions of the Supreme Court, however, have affirmatively characterized mathematical relationships and formulas as abstract ideas. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (describing Flook as holding "that a mathematical formula for computing ‘alarm limits’ in a catalytic conversion process was also a patent-ineligible abstract idea."); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (noting that the claimed "concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea, just like the algorithms at issue in Benson and Flook.").
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.
The term “substantially identical” in claim 1 and claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b) citation below with underline for emphasis.
Claim 2-8, 10-13 by virtue o dependency also have same issue.
2173.05(b) Relative Terminology [R-01.2024]
TERMS OF DEGREE
Terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite. "Claim language employing terms of degree has long been found definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention." Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370, 112 USPQ2d 1188, 1192-93 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 65-66 (1923) (finding ‘substantial pitch’ sufficiently definite because one skilled in the art ‘had no difficulty … in determining what was the substantial pitch needed’ to practice the invention)). Thus, when a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, 94 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, 94 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended.
III. APPROXIMATIONS
D. "Substantially"
The term "substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). The court held that the limitation "to substantially increase the efficiency of the compound as a copper extractant" was definite in view of the general guidelines contained in the specification. In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 184 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1975). The court held that the limitation "which produces substantially equal E and H plane illumination patterns" was definite because one of ordinary skill in the art would know what was meant by "substantially equal." Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 6 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub 8189778 to Zhang in view of US Patent 2017/0010864 to Jacobson.
Regarding claim 1, 9, Zhang discloses A method for generating a random number, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method comprising: selecting, by a first object, first symbols from an entropy pool of the first object, wherein the first object is an object of a group of mutually connected objects which are substantially identical, and wherein the entropy pool is fed with second symbols by at least one second object of the group of mutually connected objects, the at least one second object being different from the first object (Col 6 Ln 11-55, the entropy seed generated using randomness & Col 3 Ln 43-64 & Fig. 1 item 151, 150N, the network connected devices gives the seed that is used for generating an pseudo-random number & Col 11 Ln 57-58 & Col 10 LN 11-14 & Fig. 1 item 150N.
One or more entropy sources being used for entropy data acquisition module); and generating, by the first object, the random number from the random seed, wherein the random number is used to generate a cryptographic key for securing communication between the connected objects (Col 5 LN 6-38 & Col 6 Ln 56-65, the seed for use in key & Col 6 LN 36-55).
Zhang does not disclose applying, by the first object, a hash function to the first symbols to generate a random seed.
In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Jacokson discloses applying, by the first object, a hash function to the first symbols to generate a random seed(Abstract & Fig. 1- Fig. 3 & Par. 008 & Par. 0072-0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Zhang invention to incorporate applying, by the first object, a hash function to the first symbols to generate a random seed for the advantage of providing an secure N-Bit ransom value as taught in Jacobkson see Par. 0074
Regarding claim 2, 10, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the first object, the second symbols from the at least one second object of the group of mutually connected objects(Fig. 1 item 150N, 180, 185); and adding, by the first object, the second symbols to the entropy pool(Fig. 1 item 150N, 180, 185).
Regarding claim 3. the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the first object, an encrypted key with the random number(Col 6 LN 36-55, encryption key).
Regarding claim 4, 11, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the first object, a request from
Regarding claim 5, 12, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: requesting, by the first object, fourth symbols from at least one fourth object of the group of mutually connected objects(Fig. 3 item 320, 330, 340, estimate the entropy and strength); receiving, by the first object, the fourth symbols from the at least one fourth object (Col 2 Ln 31-53, the random strength with bit length); evaluating, by the first object, the fourth symbols(Col 2 Ln 31-53, the random strength with bit length); adding, by the first object, the fourth symbols to the entropy pool when a entropy quality parameter is highest(Fig. 3 item 320, 330, 340, estimate the entropy and strength & Col 5 Ln 30-58); and modifying, by the first object, the fourth symbols before adding a modified and reduced set of fourth symbols to the entropy pool when the entropy quality parameter is not highest(Fig. 3 item 320, 330, 340, estimate the entropy and strength).
Regarding claim 6, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the request includes an entropy quality parameter indicating a quality of randomness(Fig. 3 item 320, 340, 350, entropy strength & Col 4 Ln 9-50).
Regarding claim 7, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the quality of randomness is x, and wherein o<x<1(Fig. 3 item 320, 340, 350, entropy strength & Col 4 Ln 9-50). .
Regarding claim 8, 13, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first object is an internet of thing (IoT) device (Col 3 Ln 43-57, portable media devices devices).
Regarding claim 19, the combined method/object of Zhang and Jacobson, mutatis mutandis, Zhang discloses The device of claim 9, wherein the microcontroller is configured to generate an encrypted key with the random number(Col 6 LN 36-55, encryption key).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia can be reached on 571-272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov