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 .
Response to Arguments
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges and generally agrees with much of the applicant’s summary of the previous Office Action. However, the Examiner notes that at the end of the applicant’s summary, the applicant states, (Remarks page 6), that “Claims 34 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and in further view of Li et al. (X. Li, J. E. Carey, J. W. Sickler, M. U. Pralle, C. Palsule, and C. J. Vineis,"Silicon photodiodes with high photoconductive gain at room temperature," Opt. Express 20, 5518-5523 (2012)), (hereinafter "Li").” The Examiner notes in the Office Action mailed on 09/25/2025, it is claim 35 that is rejected by this listing of prior arts, not claims 34, and 36-38.
Amendments to the Claims
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the claims. The applicant states (Remarks page 7 paragraph 2): “the final part of claim 20 has been amended as suggested by the Office”, the Examiner notes that in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed on 09/25/2025 there is no suggested amendment for claim 20, merely 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments. The Examiner acknowledges claim 20 has been amended to recite a limitation of a beam splitter positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode. The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 8 paragraphs 2-4) that the quantum random number generator being modified by utilizing a beam splitter with non-unity reflectivity or transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode enables having a photodiode with unity quantum efficiency, and seemingly argues that this complies with the written description requirement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. From the applicant’s disclosure including the applicant’s claims, drawings, and specification, it is not clear as part of the written description as to how a non-unity beam splitter positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode allows a non-unity photodiode to become unity (quantum efficiency). Buonassisi (Buonassisi, T. (2011). Buonassisi (MIT) 2011 toward A 1D device model part 1: Device fundamentals. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/2-627-fundamentals-of-photovoltaics-fall-2013/0aa7ea0bec2630885ac3f919c4e5fe11_MIT2_627F13_lec07.pdf ), hereinafter “Buonassisi” discloses a definition of external quantum efficiency (EQE) as equal to electrons out divided by photons in (to the photodiode), (slide 6), with typical peak values ranging from 60%-90%. Buonassisi further discloses (slide 7) unity as being 100% quantum efficient. Buonassisi further discloses (slide 7) an example of a solar cell not reaching ideal quantum efficiency (unity) due to reflection and low diffusion length. Buonassisi further discloses (slide 8) a definition of internal quantum efficiency (IQE) as EQE divided by (1-Reflectivity), and that typical peak values range between 80-98%. Furthermore, ((2019). Photodiode technology. home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/photodiode/pdtech.html)) hereinafter, “Photodiode_tech” discloses a structure of a photodiode (Photodiode construction section). Furthermore, Photodiode_tech discloses that “Q.E. of 100% is not attainable” (Quantum Efficiency section). Photodiode_tech is seemingly describing the photodiode in and of itself not being able to achieve 100% quantum efficiency. Furthermore, Paschotta (Paschotta, Dr. Rã. (2019, May 31). Photodiodes. web.archive.org/web/20190716020448/https://www.rp-photonics.com/photodiodes.html) hereinafter, “Paschotta_2” discloses (page 7 paragraphs 3-4) that quantum efficiency of a photodiode can in some cases be more than 95% (note it does not say up to 100%), and that the quantum efficiency varies significantly due to wavelength and that high quantum efficiency requires suppression of reflections with anti-reflection coating. Furthermore, Carey et al. (Carey, Sickler, Pralle, Palsule, & Vineis. (2012, February). Silicon photodiodes with high photoconductive gain at room temperature. opg.optica.org. opg.optica.org/directpdfaccess/318f8b8b-e955-47de-93a7c9e983340faa_227940/oe-20-5-5518.pdf?da=1&id=227940&seq=0&mobile=no) hereinafter, “Carey” discloses (Fig. 2) a photoconductive gain with a photodiode having above 100% quantum efficiency due to a reverse bias applied. Furthermore, Yan et al (Yan, Y., Crisp, R. W., Gu, J., Chernomordik, B. D., Pach, G. F., Marshall, A. R., Turner, J. A., & Beard, M. C. (2017, April 3). Multiple exciton generation for photoelectrochemical hydrogen evolution reactions with quantum yields exceeding 100%. Nature Energy. https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1351583) hereinafter, “Yan” discloses (page 2 paragraph 2) multiple exciton generation (MEG), as “a process where absorption of a high-energy photon produces hot-carriers that cool via the generation of additional electron-hole pairs (excitons) rather than the generation of heat and thus, overcome part of the losses associated with hot-carrier cooling. The result is that the quantum efficiency (the number of excitons produced as a fraction of the number of photons absorbed) is greater than 100% for those wavelengths that can produce hot-carriers with sufficient energy to drive the MEG process.” Furthermore, Zalewski et al. (Zalewski, E., & Duda, C. R. (1983). Silicon photodiode device with 100% external quantum efficiency. Optica.org. opg.optica.org/directpdfaccess/5d5e144c-3ac8-4480-949b337190dd0acb_26927/ao-22-18-2867.pdf?da=1&id=26927&seq=0&mobile=no), hereinafter “Zalewski” discloses (page 2 column 2 paragraph 1) restoring 100% quantum efficiency requires a reverse bias added. Zalewski further discloses (page 4 column 2 paragraph 1) that an offset current is applied to attain 100% quantum efficiency. Zalewski further discloses (Fig. 1; page 5 column 2 paragraph 3) a light trapping method of multiple photodiodes in a structure designed to trap the reflected light off an initial photodiode in order to achieve 100% quantum efficiency. The Examiner notes that, as shown above, multiple of these sources indicate that a photodiode in and of itself cannot reach 100% quantum efficiency (unity). The Examiner further notes that while the applicant seemingly argues that the non-unity beam splitter’s position between the source and the photodiode causes the photodiode to become unity, the sources above show that quantum efficiency depends heavily on reflectivity and wavelength. Furthermore, the sources above show that while achieving greater than 100% quantum efficiency is possible, seemingly the ways to achieve this is through methods such as applying a reverse bias, causing multiple exciton generation (which seemingly requires high-energy photons), or by creating a structure of a photodiode light trap. Beam splitters split or divide a beam of light into two1. Furthermore, regarding beam splitters, Uppu et al. (Ravitej Uppu, Tom A. W. Wolterink, Tristan B. H. Tentrup, and Pepijn W. H. Pinkse, "Quantum optics of lossy asymmetric beam splitters," Opt. Express 24, 16440-16449 (2016)), hereinafter “Uppu” discloses, (Section 2 Energy constraints), that the energy output from a beam splitter must be less than or equal to the input energy. A non-unity beam splitter, on its own, does not inherently provide a higher energy photon (enabling a non-unity photodiode to become unity possibly through multiple exciton generation), nor does it inherently apply a reverse bias nor create a light trap (without further structure). For these reasons the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rejections under35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments.
The Examiner acknowledges amendment to claim 20 regarding removing indefinite language “such as”, the Examiner withdraws this specific rejection due to the amendment.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 20. The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 9 paragraph 1) that claim 20 recites a specific two-step methodology for establishing a lower bound of the entropy including obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter, and applying a security proof to the parameters to determine the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state. The Examiner respectfully notes that this does not overcome the 112(b) rejection made in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 09/25/2025 page 3 paragraph 6 through page 4 paragraph 1. The Examiner respectfully points out that it remains unclear as to what structure performs these limitations. Claim 20 recites: “wherein the quantum random number generator is configured for establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by at least obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by applying a security proof to said parameters”. From this it is unclear what structure of the quantum random number generator performs these limitations, whether it is the radiation source, the single photodiode, the transimpedance amplifier, the analog-to-digital converter, the processing unit, or some other structure that is part of the quantum random number generator.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 9 paragraph 2), that the amendment to claim 20 of “establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by at least obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by applying a security proof to said parameters” clarifies how the lower bound on the entropy could be “only determined by any one or all of the quantum efficiency of the photodiode; power of the radiation source; and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter” of claim 21. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that amended claim 20 discloses that a lower bound on the entropy is determined by applying a security proof to parameters received from the analog-to-digital converter. The Examiner notes that it remains unclear, since the dependent claim 20 discloses that the lower bound is determined by applying a security proof to parameters received from the analog-to-digital converter, how the limitation of dependent claim 21 could coincide with the claim it depends on, claim 20, since claim 21 discloses the lower bound being determined by “any one or all of the quantum efficiency of the photodiode; power of the radiation source; and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter” whereas claim 20 recites that determining the lower bound on the entropy comes from “applying a security proof to said parameters”, with the parameters being “from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter”.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 24 regarding indefinite language “such as”. The Examiner withdraws the rejection due to the amendment to the claim.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 9 paragraph 5), that the amendment of claim 20, “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode” clarifies the limitation, “the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity” of claim 35. For the reasons cited above regarding claim 20, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 9 paragraph 6), that the quantum random number generator being modified by using a beam splitter with non-unity reflectivity or transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode that enables the photodiode with a unity quantum efficiency, clarifies if the limitation of: “photodiode is unity” as internal or external quantum efficiency. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited and found in references cited above regarding claim 20, there are two different definitions of quantum efficiency of a photodiode, internal and external. Reciting that a beam splitter is positioned between the source and the photodiode does not further clarify if “photodiode is unity” is meant to mean the photodiode has 100% internal quantum efficiency or 100% external quantum efficiency.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 10 paragraph 1), that for the same reasons as claim 21 regarding limitation of determination of the lower bound on the entropy, claim 36 is clarified. For the same reasons as referenced above regarding claim 21, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims, the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn from claim 32 due to the amendment to the claim.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 1), that Sanguinetti et
al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0060534 A1), hereinafter, “Sanguinetti”, nor Trifonov
et al. (U.S. Patent 7284024 B1), hereinafter, “Trifonov”, nor Paschotta, Dr. R. (2008, October 17).
Quantum efficiency. RP Photonics. www.rp-photonics.com/quantum_efficiency.html ),
hereinafter “Paschotta”, alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest obtaining parameters from the signal output from the analog-to-digital converter, and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by applying a security proof to the parameters. The applicant continues, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 2-3) seemingly arguing that Sanguinetti describes that entropy of quantum origin per bit of the output can be approximated by dividing H(Xq) by the number of output bits of the ADC. Also that Sanguinetti further discloses a randomness extractor that generates output bits having a probability of deviating from a perfectly random bit string bounded by a statistical parameter. Furthermore the applicant seemingly argues that Sanguinetti’s entropy quantification is based on general origin entropy per bit (H(Xq)/b), which the applicant seemingly argues is a fundamentally different approach from the claimed methodology. The applicant continues stating that Sanguinetti’s entropy bounding is derived from photon number statistics rather than from applying a formal security proof to ADC derived parameters. The applicant further continues, seemingly arguing that Sanguinetti does not describe any process in which parameters are first obtained from the ADC output signal and then used as inputs to a security proof for the purpose of determining a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the applicant’s specification, page 4 lines 33-35, the applicant seemingly describes a security proof as “a set of rules, preferably a set of mathematical rules that describes how to treat the received data from the ADC so that random numbers are extracted that an adversary cannot know.” Furthermore, the applicant’s specification, page 11 lines 8-12 state “the randomness extraction is performed using so-called hash functions which are mathematical one-way functions which have been shown to remove any knowledge of potential adversaries. A mathematical security proof thereby yields the amount of entropy that can be extracted safely from the noisy measurement” seemingly stating that a security proof can be in the form of a hash function. Furthermore, the applicant seemingly admits, (Remarks page 11 paragraph 2), that Sanguinetti discloses a bounding of a random bit string, with the bounding determined by math, “Sanguinetti further discloses a randomness extractor that generates output bits having a probability of deviating from a perfectly random bit string bounded by a statistical parameter”. The applicant cites claim 1 of Sanguinetti for this, however in claim 1 of Sanguinetti it specifically says that the random bit string is “bounded by
=
2
-
(
s
l
-
k
)
/
2
” (which can also be found in Sanguinetti [0038], [0029], and equation 4), which as interpreted by the Examiner, is a set of mathematical rules (an algorithm). Furthermore, Sanguinetti discloses that the “randomness extractor 3 may also be realized by a hash function performing an operation”. Furthermore, Sanguinetti shows that the input to the randomness extractor is the output of the analog-to-digital converter (Fig. 2 items 2.4 (ADC), and 3 (randomness extractor)). Furthermore, Sanguinetti discloses that the randomness extractor is adapted to generate output bits yj having a probability that the output bits deviate from a perfectly random bit string bounded by
=
2
-
(
s
l
-
k
)
/
2
(as shown in Sanguinetti claim 1, and [0028]-[0029] and equation 4). Furthermore, Sanguinetti [0038] discloses that raw bit values, rj, are obtained from the detector 2 (Fig. 2 item 2), where Fig. 2 shows the ADC is the final output of the detector circuit 2. Furthermore, [0028] discloses that the entropy, s, per bit can be approximated by dividing H(Xq) by the number of output bits of the ADC. As interpreted by the Examiner, Sanguinetti discloses a mathematical set of rules (through the randomness extractor) whereas the input to the randomness extractor comes from the ADC, more specifically raw bit values as well as a parameter of the number of ADC bits, and the random bit string is bounded by the randomness extractor applying the mathematical set of rules which uses variables derived from parameters from the ADC.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 11 paragraphs 4 – 5 through page 12 paragraphs 1-2) seemingly arguing that Trifonov does not disclose entropy estimation, entropy lower bounds, security proofs, or a method of establishing randomness quality from ADC parameters, with Trifonov transformation electronics performing mathematical transformations on the ADC output signal to produce random numbers. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that Trifonov dos not disclose obtaining parameters from the ADC output signal for the purpose of establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state nor does Trifonov describe applying a security proof to any such parameters. The Examiner respectfully notes that Trifonov is not relied upon for these related claim limitations of lower bound entropy determination.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 3), seemingly arguing that Paschotta does not describe any process for establishing a lower bound on entropy from vacuum states, does not describe security proofs, and does not describe obtaining parameters from an ADC output signal for the purpose of entropy bound determination. The Examiner respectfully notes that Paschotta is not relied upon for these related claim limitations of lower bound entropy determination.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 4), seemingly arguing that the combined teachings of Sanguinetti, Trifonov, and Paschotta would not recite the newly amended claim limitations of claim 20 regarding obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter, and applying a security proof to those parameters to determine the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state. For the reasons referenced above regarding Sanguinetti disclosing determining a bound of the entropy through a randomness extractor, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 5), seemingly arguing that the claimed methodology to establish entropy bounds is fundamentally different than the listed prior art. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that the specific link between ADC derived parameters, a security proof, and the resulting entropy lower bound is not disclosed, taught or suggested by the listed prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons referenced above regarding Sanguinetti disclosing determining a bound of the entropy through a randomness extractor.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 12 paragraph 6 through page 13 paragraph 1) seemingly arguing that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in any of the cited prior art that would lead a person skilled in the art to modify or combine the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that Sanguinetti does not suggest applying its entropy estimation to ADC derived parameters via a security proof, Trifonov does not suggest entropy bounding, and Paschotta does not address entropy or security proofs in the context of random number generation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons referenced above regarding Sanguinetti disclosing determining a bound of the entropy through a randomness extractor.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 13 paragraph 2), seemingly arguing that with respect to claims 25, 30-32, 33, 34, and 36-38, none of Nordholt (CN108139888), hereinafter “Nordholt”, Abellan et al. (Carlos Abellan, Waldimar Amaya, David Domenech, Pascual Muñoz, Jose Capmany, Stefano Longhi, Morgan W. Mitchell, and Valerio Pruneri, "Quantum entropy source on an InP photonic integrated circuit for random number generation," Optica 3, 989-994 (2016)), hereinafter “Abellan”, Yuan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/00331672), hereinafter “Yuan”, Hayward, (High efficiency polarizing beamsplitter- 10% improvement. Moxtek. (2014, March 27). moxtek.com/pdfs/high-efficiency-polarizing-beamsplitter-10-improvement/#:~:text=If%20all%20of%20the%20light,81%25%20efficient%20at%20550nm%20wavelen
gth.), hereinafter, “Hayward” and Li et al. (X. Li, J. E. Carey, J. W. Sickler, M. U. Pralle, C. Palsule, and C.
J. Vineis, "Silicon photodiodes with high photoconductive gain at room temperature," Opt. Express 20,
5518-5523 (2012)), hereinafter “Li”, remedies the deficiencies (lower bound of entropy determined by security proof on parameters provided by ADC). The Examiner respectfully points out that these listed prior art references are not relied upon for these related claim limitations of lower bound entropy determination.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 appears to contain a grammatical error and should be changed to: “is configured such that a vacuum state interferes with the radiation”
Claim 21 appears to contain a typographical error: “The quantum random number generator according to claim 0”. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the claim to be dependent on claim 20 not on a claim 0 which is not shown. The Examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that proper marking of amended claims is to label the claim as (Currently amended), any deleted matter must be struck through, and any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. See MPEP 714(c).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue" include, but are not limited to: (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The first factor considered is the breadth of claim 35. Claim 35, when considered alone, is broad “The quantum random number generator according to claim 20, wherein the quantum random number generator is modified in that the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity”. However, when considering the context of the claim it depends upon, claim 20, and the applicant’s specification (page 12 lines 31-33), the claim is not broad. Claim 20 recites the limitation of: “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode”, and the applicant’s specification (page 12 lines 31-33) recite: “If the quantum random number generator comprises the beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode, the quantum efficiency of the photodiode can be unity or non-unity.” Analysis of this factor therefore suggests that the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention is not undue.
The second factor considered is the nature of the invention. The invention is of a quantum random number generator generating secure random numbers in part by use of a radiation source and a non-unity single photodiode. However, with the limitations of “The quantum random number generator according to claim 20, wherein the quantum random number generator is modified in that the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity”, where the photodiode is originally non-unity, “where the photodiode has a non-unity quantum efficiency”, and where the modification is that of “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode”, the nature of the invention is that of requiring additional structure, components, or further implementation details that are not disclosed in the claims nor the applicant’s specification. Analysis of this factor therefore suggests that the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention is undue.
The third factor considered is the state of the prior art. The art of record evidences that non-unity photodiodes are not known to become unity with a modification of “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode” (of claim 20). Analysis of this factor therefore suggests that the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention is undue.
The fourth factor considered is the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The level of skill in the art is the skill required to understand that a non-unity photodiode means either an internal or external quantum efficiency of less than 100%. Furthermore, the level of skill in the art is the skill required to understand that in order create a 100% quantum efficient photodiode, external bias needs to be added (as an example, reverse bias as shown in Carey and Zalewski as referenced above), high energy photons need produced from the source to cause multiple exciton generation (as an example, shown in Yan as referenced above), creating a structure of a photodiode light trap (as an example, shown in Zalewski as referenced above). Furthermore, the level of skill in the art is the skill required to understand what a beam splitter does. Analysis of this factor therefore suggests that the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention is undue.
The fifth factor considered is the level of predictability in the art. The state of the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, makes the limitation of “wherein the quantum random number generator is modified in that the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity”, where the modification is “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode” unpredictable. This factor weighs neither for nor against the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention being undue.
The sixth and seventh factors considered is the amount of direction provided, and the existence of working examples. The disclosure provides no direction nor working examples as to how “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode” (of claim 20) would result in “the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity.” The applicant’s specification (Page 12 lines 31-33) merely states: “If the quantum random number generator comprises the beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode, the quantum efficiency of the photodiode can be unity or non-unity.” As referenced above, it is not known in the art, nor obvious from the inherit nature of a beam splitter, for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand how merely placing a non-uniform reflectivity or non-uniform transmittivity beam splitter between the source and photodiode would cause the photodiode to become unity when it originally is non-unity. Analysis of this factor therefore suggests that the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention, is undue.
The eighth factor considered is the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Without any direction provided or working examples as to how “a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode” leads to “the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity”, experimentation would be required based solely on the fundamental knowledge of photodiodes not being unity without some manner of increasing the electrons produced, and knowledge of beam splitters, and experiment (with a single photodiode and a single beam splitter) to overcome this concept. Analysis of this factor therefore suggests that the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention is undue.
After weighing all of the factors, the totality of the evidence suggests that it would require undue experimentation to make the claimed invention. The majority of the factors suggest that undue experimentation is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-38 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.
Regarding claim 20, the bounds of the claim are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the claimed function of performing of “establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by at least obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by applying a security proof to said parameters”. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, which makes it unclear what structure of the quantum random number generator, the radiation source, the single photodiode, the transimpedance amplifier, the analog-to-digital converter, the processing unit, some combination of components, or some other additional component not mentioned performs the functions in the limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Furthermore regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitations of: “a single photodiode configured for generating photo current based on received light from the radiation source, where the photodiode has a non-unity quantum efficiency for allowing interference of the radiation from the radiation source with a vacuum state to obtain entropy from the vacuum state, or a single photodiode configured for generating photo current based on received light from the radiation source, and a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode, wherein the quantum random number generator is configured such that a vacuum state interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the beam splitter;”. It is unclear if the limitation of: “and a beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity positioned between the radiation source and the single photodiode” is meant to be understood as applying to both limitations of: “a single photodiode configured for generating photo current based on received light from the radiation source, where the photodiode has a non-unity quantum efficiency for allowing interference of the radiation from the radiation source with a vacuum state to obtain entropy from the vacuum state” and “a single photodiode configured for generating photo current based on received light from the radiation source” or if it is meant to be understood as only for one of the limitations.
Claims 21-38 inherit the same deficiency as claim 20 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitation of: “wherein the lower bound on the entropy is determined by or only determined by any one or all of the quantum efficiency of the photodiode; power of the radiation source; and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter.” In regards to the lower bound on the entropy, claim 20, which claim 21 is dependent upon, recites: “the quantum random number generator is configured for establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by at least obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by applying a security proof to said parameters”. It is unclear how the limitations of claim 21 coincides with the limitations set forth in claim 20, where in claim 20 the lower bound is determined by applying a security proof to parameters obtained from the analog-to-digital converter.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites the limitation of: “the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity”. The bounds of the claim are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the claimed function of performing of “wherein the quantum random number generator is modified in that the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity”. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, the quantum random number generator, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the quantum random number generator in a certain manner. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation of: “photodiode is unity” is meant to describe internal or external quantum efficiency of the photodiode.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites the limitations of: “the lower bound on the entropy is determined by or only determined by any one or all of: reflectivity of the beam splitter, power of the radiation source, and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter or reflectivity of the beam splitter, the quantum efficiency of the photodiode, power of the radiation source, and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter.” In regards to the lower bound on the entropy, claim 20, which claim 36 is dependent upon, recites: “the quantum random number generator is configured for establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by at least obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the vacuum state by applying a security proof to said parameters”. It is unclear how the limitations of claim 36 coincides with the limitations set forth in claim 20, where in claim 20 the lower bound is determined by applying a security proof to parameters obtained from the analog-to-digital converter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 20-24, 26-29, and 36-38 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanguinetti Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward.
With regards to claim 20, Sanguinetti teaches:
A quantum random number generator (Fig. 2);
an entropy source comprising a radiation source; (Fig. 2 item 1 (light source); [0025] regarding a light source for the random number generator);
a single photon sensor configured for generating electron signals based on received light from the radiation source, (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); ([0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector; [0011] regarding the light detector absorbing the photons from the light source and producing an electron signal based on the photons);
where the photon sensor has a non-unity quantum efficiency for allowing interference of the radiation from the radiation source with a quantum uncertainty to obtain entropy from the quantum uncertainty, (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector, with description of losses due to the photon sensor's quantum efficiency; [0031] regarding the quantum efficiency being 80% of the image sensor; [0017] regarding the quantum uncertainty combined with noise indicating the distribution probability that a number of photons are measured by a photon sensor; [0027] regarding the quantum uncertainty being a source of entropy);
or a single photon sensor configured for generating photo current based on received light from the radiation source, (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); ([0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector; [0011] regarding the light detector absorbing the photons from the light source and producing an electron signal based on the photons);
and a lossy channel positioned between the radiation source and the single photon sensor, ([0025] " The detector 2 comprises several elements and can be modelled, such as also schematically indicated in FIG. 2, as lossy channel 2.1 with a transmission probability η, similar to a beamsplitter");
wherein the quantum random number generator is configured such that a quantum uncertainty interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the lossy channel; (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector, with description of losses due to the photon sensor's quantum efficiency; [0017] regarding the quantum uncertainty combined with noise indicating the distribution probability that a number of photons are measured by a photon sensor; [0027] regarding the quantum uncertainty being a source of entropy);
an amplifier to convert the electron signal into voltage; (Fig. 2 item 2.3 (amplifier); [0025] regarding the amplifier converting the electron signal from the photon sensor into a voltage);
an analog-to-digital converter for converting the analog voltage to a digital output; (Fig. 2 item 2.4 (Analog to digital converter); [0025] regarding the analog to digital converter (ADC) converting the voltage into digital values);
and a processing unit; ([0025] regarding the circuit containing processing electronics (as a processing unit));
wherein the quantum random number generator is configured for establishing a lower bound on the entropy from the quantum uncertainty ([0028] - [0030] regarding various methods and algorithms for the randomness extractor to produce random numbers from the random bits generated; [0028]-[0029] and equation 4 regarding the randomness extractor is adapted to generate output bits yj having a probability that the output bits deviate from a perfectly random bit string bounded by e = 2 -(sl-k)/2);
by at least obtaining parameters from the signal that comes out of the analog-to-digital converter and determining the lower bound on the entropy from the quantum uncertainty by applying a security proof to said parameters, (Fig. 2 items 2.4 (ADC), and 3 (randomness extractor; [0028]-[0029] and equation 4 regarding the randomness extractor is adapted to generate output bits yj having a probability that the output bits deviate from a perfectly random bit string bounded by e = 2 -(sl-k)/2; [0028] discloses that the entropy, s, per bit can be approximated by dividing H(Xq) by the number of output bits of the ADC. As interpreted by the Examiner, Sanguinetti discloses a mathematical set of rules (through the randomness extractor) whereas the input to the randomness extractor comes from the ADC, more specifically raw bit values as well as a parameter of the number of ADC bits, and the random bit string is bounded by the randomness extractor applying the mathematical set of rules which uses variables derived from parameters from the ADC);
and wherein the processing unit is configured for converting the digital output from the analog-to- digital converter to random numbers based on the established lower bound on the entropy from the quantum uncertainty. (Fig. 2 items 2.4 (ADC), and 3 (randomness extractor; [0028]-[0029] and equation 4 regarding the randomness extractor is adapted to generate output bits yj having a probability that the output bits deviate from a perfectly random bit string bounded by e = 2 -(sl-k)/2 ; [0038] regarding the random extractor being tuned based on a minimum entropy);
Sanguinetti does explicitly teach:
photodiode
photo current
Photodiode has a non-unity quantum efficiency
beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity
interference of the radiation from the radiation source with a vacuum state to obtain entropy from the vacuum state
Vacuum state
Beam splitter
transimpedance amplifier
However, Trifonov teaches:
photodiode (Fig 1 item 40 (photodetector); Column 3 lines 40-41 regarding the photodetector as a photodiode)
photo current (Column 4 lines 7-10 regarding the photodetector (as photodiode) generating photocurrent in response to the light signal)
Photodiode has a non-unity quantum efficiency (Fig 1 item 40 (photodetector); Column 3 lines 40-41 regarding the photodetector as a photodiode; Column 4 lines 7-10 regarding the photodetector (as photodiode) generating photocurrent in response to the light signal; Background info on photodiodes: Photodiodes in general are non-unity, as seen in Paschotta, “photodiodes can have quantum efficiencies above 90% although values between 40% and 80% are more common”)
beam splitter with a non-unity reflectivity or a non-unity transmittivity (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode. Background information of beam splitters: beam splitters in general are non-unity, as seen in Hayward, “If all of the light is converted, then the beamsplitter would be 100% efficient. In reality, some of the light is absorbed, some ‘s’ is transmitted and some ‘p’ is reflected, reducing the efficiency. The Moxtek standard PBS is typically 81% efficient”)
interference of the radiation from the radiation source with a vacuum state to obtain entropy from the vacuum state (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode)
Vacuum state (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode)
Beam splitter (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode.)
transimpedance amplifier (Fig. 1 item (50); Column 4 lines 11-14 regarding the transimpedance amplifier receiving photocurrent and creating an analog voltage signal from it)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with Trifonov and Paschotta for use of a vacuum state to interfere with the radiation source because interference from a vacuum state in place of a quantum uncertainty and noise of Sanguinetti, is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti
with Trifonov and Paschotta because a transimpedance amplifier, in place of an unspecified amplifier of
Sanguinetti, is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results,
[MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Hayward because a Sanguinetti teaches a lossy channel and specifies that the lossy channel acts similar to a beam splitter (that is non-unity, which is found in Hayward as general background information on beam splitters), thus is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 21, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the lower bound on the entropy is determined by or only determined by any one or all of the quantum efficiency of the photon sensor; power of the radiation source; and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter. ([0038] regarding the random extractor tuned related to the minimal entropy of the detected photon number distribution; [0028] regarding entropy, s, per bit approximated by dividing H(Xq) by the number of output bits of the ADC; Fig. 2 items 2.4 (ADC), and 3 (randomness extractor; [0028]-[0029] and equation 4 regarding the randomness extractor is adapted to generate output bits yj having a probability that the output bits deviate from a perfectly random bit string bounded by e = 2 -(sl-k)/2)
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
photodiode
However, Trifonov teaches:
photodiode (as referenced above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 22, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the quantum uncertainty used as randomness source interfere with the radiation
from the radiation source at the photon sensor due to the non-unity quantum efficiency of the photon
sensor. (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65
regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode;
[0017] regarding the quantum uncertainty combined with noise indicating the distribution probability
that a number of photons are measured by a photon sensor; [0027] regarding the quantum uncertainty
being a source of entropy).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
vacuum states used as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source
photodiode
non-unity quantum efficiency of the photodiode
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches:
vacuum states used as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode)
photodiode (as referenced above)
non-unity quantum efficiency of the photodiode (Fig 1 item 40 (photodetector); Column 3 lines 40-41 regarding the photodetector as a photodiode; Column 4 lines 7-10 regarding the photodetector (as photodiode) generating photocurrent in response to the light signal; Background information on photodiodes: Photodiodes in general are non-unity, as seen in Paschotta, “photodiodes can have quantum efficiencies above 90% although values between 40% and 80% are more common”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti
with Trifonov and Paschotta for use of a vacuum state to interfere with the radiation source because
interference from a vacuum state in place of a quantum uncertainty and noise of Sanguinetti, is a simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 23, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the only quantum uncertainty and noise used as randomness source interfere with
the radiation from the radiation source at the photon sensor due to the non-unity quantum efficiency
of the photon sensor. (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector, with description of losses due to the photon sensor's quantum efficiency; [0017] regarding the quantum uncertainty combined with noise indicating the distribution probability that a number of photons are measured by a photon sensor; [0027] regarding the quantum uncertainty being a source of entropy).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
vacuum states used as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source
photodiode
non-unity quantum efficiency of the photodiode
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches:
vacuum states used as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode)
photodiode (as referenced above)
non-unity quantum efficiency of the photodiode (as referenced above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 24, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the radiation source is a Fabry-Perot diode laser, a distributed feedback laser, a
distributed Bragg reflector laser, a vertical cavity surface-emitting laser, coherent microwave source,
or an incoherent radiation source. ([0025] regarding the light source being an LED (as an incoherent radiation source)).
With regards to claim 26, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the single photon sensor has a quantum efficiency at the wavelength or band of wavelengths of the received light from the laser source, where the quantum efficiency is less than 90%. ([0031] regarding the quantum efficiency being 80% of the image sensor).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
Photodiode
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches
Photodiode (as referenced above; Furthermore, in background information on photodiodes from Paschotta, “photodiodes can have quantum efficiencies above 90% although values between 40% and 80% are more common”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 27, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the single photon sensor has a quantum efficiency at the wavelength or band of wavelengths of the received light from the laser source, where the quantum efficiency is more than 10%. ([0031] regarding the quantum efficiency being 80% of the image sensor).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
Photodiode
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches
Photodiode (as referenced above; Furthermore, in background information on photodiodes from Paschotta, “photodiodes can have quantum efficiencies above 90% although values between 40% and 80% are more common”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 28, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the processing unit is configured to convert the digital output from the analog-to- digital converter to random numbers using a randomness extraction algorithm. (Fig. 2 item 3 (randomness extractor); [0011] regarding the random extractor further processes the digital values to produce quantum random numbers; [0028] - [0030] regarding various methods and algorithms for the randomness extractor to produce random numbers from the random bits generated).
With regards to claim 29, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 28, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the randomness extraction algorithm is based on hash functions. (Fig. 2 item 3 (randomness extractor); [0030] regarding the randomness extractor using hash functions).
With regards to claim 36, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the lower bound on the entropy is determined by or only determined by any one or
all of: reflectivity of the lossy channel, power of the radiation source, and resolution of the analog-to-
digital converter or reflectivity of the lossy channel, the quantum efficiency of the photon sensor,
power of the radiation source, and resolution of the analog-to-digital converter.
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
photodiode
beam splitter
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches:
photodiode (as referenced above)
beam splitter (as referenced above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one
known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Hayward because a Sanguinetti teaches a lossy channel and specifies that the lossy channel acts similar to a beam splitter (that is non-unity, which is found in Hayward as general background information on beam splitters), thus is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 37, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the quantum uncertainty and noise as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source. (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being
any kind of photon detector, with description of losses due to the photon sensor's quantum efficiency;
[0017] regarding the quantum uncertainty combined with noise indicating the distribution probability
that a number of photons are measured by a photon sensor; [0027] regarding the quantum uncertainty
being a source of entropy).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
vacuum states
interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the beam splitter due to the non-unity reflectivity of the beam splitter
However, Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches:
vacuum states (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode)
interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the beam splitter due to the non-unity reflectivity of the beam splitter (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode; Furthermore, as background information on beam splitters: Beam splitters in general are non-unity, as seen in Hayward, “If all of the light is converted, then the beamsplitter would be 100% efficient. In reality, some of the light is absorbed, some ‘s’ is transmitted and some ‘p’ is reflected, reducing the efficiency. The Moxtek standard PBS is typically 81% efficient”))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta for use of a vacuum state to interfere with the radiation source because
interference from a vacuum state in place of quantum uncertainty and noise of Sanguinetti, is a simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Hayward because a Sanguinetti teaches a lossy channel and specifies that the lossy channel acts similar to a beam splitter (that is non-unity, which is found in Hayward as general background information on beam splitters), thus is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
With regards to claim 38, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the quantum uncertainty and noise as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the single photon sensor due to the non-unity quantum efficiency of the photon sensor. (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector, with description of losses due to the photon sensor's quantum efficiency; [0031] regarding the quantum efficiency being 80% of the image sensor; [0017] regarding the quantum uncertainty combined with noise indicating the distribution probability that a number of photons are measured by a photon sensor; [0027] regarding the quantum uncertainty being a source of entropy).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
vacuum states as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the single photodiode
non-unity quantum efficiency of the photodiode
and at the beam splitter due to the non-unity reflectivity of the beam splitter
However, Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches:
vacuum states as randomness source interfere with the radiation from the radiation source at the single photodiode (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Column 4 lines 57-65 regarding vacuum fluctuations interacting with the source signal to generate signal to the photodiode)
non-unity quantum efficiency of the photodiode (Fig 1 item 40 (photodetector); Column 3 lines 40-41 regarding the photodetector as a photodiode; Column 4 lines 7-10 regarding the photodetector (as photodiode) generating photocurrent in response to the light signal; Furthermore, as background of photodiodes: Photodiodes in general are non-unity, as seen in Paschotta, “photodiodes can have quantum efficiencies above 90% although values between 40% and 80% are more common”)
and at the beam splitter due to the non-unity reflectivity of the beam splitter (Fig. 1 Item 30 (Beamsplitter) located between the source and photodiode; Furthermore, as background information of beam splitters, Beam splitters in general are non-unity, as seen in Hayward, “If all of the light is converted, then the beamsplitter would be 100% efficient. In reality, some of the light is absorbed, some ‘s’ is transmitted and some ‘p’ is reflected, reducing the efficiency. The Moxtek standard PBS is typically 81% efficient”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes (that are non-unity, which is found in Paschotta as general background information on photodiodes) in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti
with Trifonov and Paschotta for use of a vacuum state to interfere with the radiation source because
interference from a vacuum state in place of quantum uncertainty and noise of Sanguinetti, is a simple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Hayward because a Sanguinetti teaches a lossy channel and specifies that the lossy channel acts similar to a beam splitter (that is non-unity, which is found in Hayward as general background information on beam splitters), thus is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Claim 25 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov
and Paschotta and Hayward and in further view of Nordholt.
With regards to claim 25, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the single photon sensor. (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
Photodiode
photodiode is an Indium Gallium Arsenide diode, a Silicon diode or a Germanium diode
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches
Photodiode (as referenced above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one
known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta does not explicitly teach:
photodiode is an Indium Gallium Arsenide diode, a Silicon diode or a Germanium diode
However, Nordholt teaches:
photodiode is an Indium Gallium Arsenide diode, a Silicon diode or a Germanium diode (Page 10, paragraph 5, Section discussing Fig. 5, regarding the photodiode as an indium-gallium-arsenic photodiode)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta with Nordholt because Trifonov and Paschotta teaches a photodiode, and Nordholt simply teaches a specific type of photodiode, both are photodiodes, which leads to this being a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Claims 30-32 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward and in further view of Abellan.
With regards to claim 30, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the radiation source and/or the photon sensor, is/are integrated on a photonic integrated circuit (PIC). (Fig. 2 item 2.2 (photon sensor); [0025] regarding the photon sensor being any kind of photon detector);
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
photodiode
the radiation source and/or the photodiode, is/are integrated on a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches:
Photodiode (as referenced above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one
known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta does not explicitly teach:
the radiation source and/or the photodetector, is/are integrated on a photonic integrated circuit (PIC)
However, Abellan teaches:
the radiation source and/or the photodetector, is/are integrated on a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) (Section 1, paragraph 2 regarding optical devices built using Photonic integrated circuits)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of
Trifonov and Paschotta with Abellan because “(PIC) technology is a key ingredient for building scalable
optical devices” [Abellan: Section 1 paragraph 2].
With regards to claim 31, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the quantum random number generator. (Fig. 2).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
the quantum random number generator is integrated on an integrated circuit (IC)
However, Abellan teaches:
the quantum random number generator is integrated on an integrated circuit (IC) (Section 1, paragraph 2 regarding optical devices, for quantum random number generation, built using Photonic integrated circuits)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of
Trifonov and Paschotta with Abellan because “(PIC) technology is a key ingredient for building scalable
optical devices” [Abellan: Section 1 paragraph 2].
With regards to claim 32, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward and in further view of Abellan teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 31, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
wherein the IC comprises a photonic integrated circuit (PIC).
However, Abellan teaches:
wherein the IC comprises a photonic integrated circuit (PIC). (Section 1, paragraph 2 regarding optical devices built using Photonic integrated circuits)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of
Trifonov and Paschotta with Abellan because “(PIC) technology is a key ingredient for building scalable
optical devices” [Abellan: Section 1 paragraph 2].
Claim 33 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward and in further view of Yuan.
With regards to claim 33, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward teaches the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the quantum random number generator comprises a guide for guiding the light from
the radiation source to the photon sensor. ([0025] regarding light from the source impinges on the photon sensor (as photodiode) by guide).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
waveguide
photodiode
However, Yuan teaches:
waveguide ([0061] regarding a waveguide connecting to a component from the light source)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti in view of
Trifonov and Paschotta with Yuan because Sanguinetti teaches a guide from the light source to the
photon sensor, and Yuan simply teaches a specific type of guide, a waveguide. Sanguinetti teaching a
guide from the light source to the photon sensor is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
photodiode
However, Trifonov and Paschotta teaches:
Photodiode (as referenced above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with
Trifonov and Paschotta because photodiodes in place of photon sensors is a simple substitution of one
known element for another to obtain predictable results, [MPEP 2141(III)(B)].
Claim 35 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov
and Paschotta and Hayward and in further view of Li.
With regards to claim 35, Sanguinetti in view of Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward, teaches
the quantum random number generator according to claim 20, as referenced above.
Sanguinetti further teaches:
wherein the quantum random number generator. (Fig. 2).
Sanguinetti does not explicitly teach:
is modified in that the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity
However, Li teaches:
is modified in that the quantum efficiency of the photodiode is unity (Section 3 paragraph 1 regarding photodiodes operated in a certain way, with reverse bias, to achieve higher than 100% quantum efficiency due to gain from an electron-hole pair or extra charges supplied by an external circuit)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Sanguinetti with Trifonov and Paschotta and Hayward with Li because it allows for “the photodiode demonstrates excellent photo response over a broad spectrum that covers various applications” [Li: Section 3 paragraph 1].
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Zhou, Q., Valivarthi, R., John, C., & Tittel, W. (2019). Practical quantum random‐number generation based on sampling vacuum fluctuations. Quantum Engineering, 1(1). doi.org/10.1002/que2.8
Document regarding a quantum number generator based on vacuum fluctuations
Conclusion
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 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 JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 8:30am - 3:30pm ET.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2182
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
1 Rodriguez, Y. (2016, December). Photonics 101- understanding beam splitters - tower optical corporation. Tower Optical Corporation -. https://toweroptical.com/photonics-101-understanding-beam-splitters/
Regarding a definition of a beam splitter
Prosecution Insights