DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amending of claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 16, 20, 22. Claim 9 marked “Original” but amended since previous claim submission, dated 11/6/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 (Certain Limitations Not Disclosed, No Motivation to Combine, No Reasonable Expectation of Success) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (Remarks pgs. 9-13).
Applicant argues that a POSITA would not have been motivated to modify references using Scarlett to read on claims 11 and 22, because operation of the photodetector in Scarlett is not indicative of a stream of electrons, and nothing in any of the cited references provides a reason to utilize a configuration as recited in the claims to determine a random output value (Remarks pg. 14).
Examiner disagrees. Claims 11 and 22 require a random value to be obtained from a stream of electrons or an optical signal. Operation of a photodetector is indicative of an optical signal. Scarlett provides a reason to utilize a configuration as recited in the claims to determine a random output value (i.e. to provide true random number generating functionality to the device (Scarlett col. 11 lines 30-40)).
Applicant argues Ghosh does not disclose the optical signal comprising a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz. Applicant notes that Ghosh’s bandwidths are achieved through traditional electrical pumping with an applied current to stimulate the VCSEL (Remarks pg. 14-15).
Examiner agrees. Claim 34-35 103 rejections withdrawn.
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 34-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 34-35 require the optical signal to comprise a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz. Specification mentions “high” bandwidth, but does not define “high” (0058). Specification does not include any specific bandwidth values. Claim 34-35 limitation not discussed or shown in sufficient detail to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 34-35 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. Specification does not enable optical signal comprising a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz.
Wands factors, MPEP 2164.01(a)
The claim is broad (greater than 70 GHz), no upper limit
Invention pertains to a VCSEL that receives a stream of electrons and emits a corresponding optical signal
Prior art generally recognizes frequencies well below 70 GHz for such systems
D, E. Levels of ordinary skill and predictability in the art are insufficient for enablement
F, G. Applicant provides some direction/example for “high” bandwidth device, but not enough for 70+ GHz, no data or specific parameters provided
H. Level of experimentation would be high
Claim Interpretation
“Low voltage” is adequately defined and interpreted to mean a voltage less than 5 V (instant application Specification 0038). A prior art disclosure of either “low” voltage or a voltage less than 5 V is deemed sufficient to read on a claim limitation merely requiring “low voltage”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Rice (US-5807764-A).
Regarding claim 1, Rice discloses a system for generating optical signals (annotated fig. 1, col. 4 lines 40-45), comprising: a VCSEL comprising an electron aperture and a gain region and configured to emit an optical signal (VCSEL (Laser box) comprising electron aperture (opening between pair of 38s) and a gain region 35 and configured to emit optical signal 15, col. 5 lines 10-50, col. 8 lines 15-30); and a low voltage electron emission device comprising an electron source (electron emission device (everything outside of Laser box) comprising electron source 17+19+21+23+25, col. 5 lines 10-20, low voltage col. 4 lines 35-40), wherein, upon activation of the low voltage electron emission device, the electron source is configured to emit a stream of electrons through the electron aperture to the gain region of the VCSEL (emission device activation causes 17+19+21+23+25 to emit stream of electrons 11 between 38s and to 35, col. 5 lines 10-50), wherein the gain region of the VCSEL is configured to receive the stream of electrons from the low voltage electron emission device (35 receives 11 from emission device, col. 5 lines 10-50), and wherein the VCSEL is configured to emit an optical signal in response to receipt of the stream of electrons in the gain region without an applied current to stimulate the VCSEL (Laser configured to emit optical signal 15 in response to receiving 11 in 35 and without applied current, col. 5 lines 10-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1
Regarding claim 7, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the activation of the low voltage electron emission device causes an electrical field to be applied around the electron source, causing the electron source to emit electrons.
Activation of electron emission device causes electric field to be applied around 17+19+21+23+25, causing it to emit electrons 11 (col. 5 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 12, Rice discloses a method of generating an optical signal (annotated fig. 1, col. 4 lines 40-45), comprising: activating a low voltage electron emission device (electron emission device (everything outside of Laser box) comprising electron source 17+19+21+23+25, col. 5 lines 10-20, low voltage col. 4 lines 35-40), wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an electron source (electron source 17+19+21+23+25); causing the electron source to emit a stream of electrons (emission device activation causes 17+19+21+23+25 to emit stream of electrons 11); and directing the stream of electrons through an electron aperture of a VCSEL and to a gain region of the VCSEL (11 directed through gap between 38s and to 35, col. 5 lines 10-50, col. 8 lines 15-30), wherein the VCSEL is configured to emit an optical signal in response to receipt of the stream of electrons in the gain region without use of an applied current to stimulate the VCSEL (Laser configured to emit optical signal 15 in response to receiving 11 in 35 and without applied current, col. 5 lines 10-50).
Regarding claim 18, Rice discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein activating the low voltage electron emission device causes an electrical field to be applied around the electron source, causing the electron source to emit electrons.
Activation of electron emission device causes electric field to be applied around 17+19+21+23+25, causing it to emit electrons 11 (col. 5 lines 10-25).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8-9, 14-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Iwasaki/hereinafter ”Iwa” (US-20010019565-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1.
Rice does not disclose wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Iwa discloses a multi-electron-beam laser with a plurality of lasers (fig. 7 plurality of lasers 3, 0040-0041) and an electron emission device comprising an array of electron sources (electron emission device 7+2s comprises array of 2s), and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one laser from the plurality of lasers (each 2 coupled to one 3 from the plurality of 3s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to provide a multi-electron-beam laser capable of emitting a plurality of laser beams at one time (Iwa 0041).
Regarding claim 4, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1.
Rice does not disclose wherein the electron source comprises a carbon nanotube.
Iwa discloses an electron-beam excitation laser with a carbon nanotube electron source (fig. 1, 0037 lines 9-13, 0038-0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electron source comprise a carbon nanotube because carbon nanotube is “good at emitting electrons” (Iwa 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1.
Rice does not disclose wherein the low voltage electron emission device further comprises a gate configured to focus the stream of electrons into a collimated electron beam.
Iwa discloses an electron-beam excitation laser with a gate configured to control an electron-beam (fig. 7, emission device 2+14+13 comprises gate/control electrode 13 configured to control beam 200, 0038, 0041). Iwa further discloses a desire to focus beam + increase device/emission efficiency (0012, 0038).
def. collimate – to make parallel (Merriam-Webster)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a gate/control electrode 13 to control beam and maximally collimate the electron beam to direct more of the electron beam towards the VCSEL input and increase device efficiency (Iwa 0012, 0038).
Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Collimation of the electron beam is not inventive over the prior art as it simply optimizes known device/structure towards achieving a goal disclosed within the prior art (more parallel beams [Wingdings font/0xE0] more beam directed towards VCSEL [Wingdings font/0xE0] increased efficiency) (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rice discloses the system of Claim 8, wherein the VCSEL comprises an input end and an emission end (annotated fig. 1 Laser comprises input end (left side of box) and emission end (right side of box)), wherein the gate is further configured to direct the collimated electron beam into the input end of the VCSEL and wherein the optical signal is emitted from the emission end of the VCSEL (beam 11 enters left side of box and optical signal 15 emitted from right side of box).
Regarding claim 14, Rice discloses the method of claim 12.
Rice does not disclose wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Iwa discloses a multi-electron-beam laser with a plurality of lasers (fig. 7 plurality of lasers 3, 0040-0041) and an electron emission device comprising an array of electron sources (electron emission device 7+2s comprises array of 2s), and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one laser from the plurality of lasers (each 2 coupled to one 3 from the plurality of 3s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to provide a multi-electron-beam laser capable of emitting a plurality of laser beams at one time (Iwa 0041).
Regarding claim 15, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12.
Rice does not disclose wherein the electron source comprises a carbon nanotube.
Iwa discloses an electron-beam excitation laser with a carbon nanotube electron source (fig. 1, 0037 lines 9-13, 0038-0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electron source comprise a carbon nanotube because carbon nanotube is “good at emitting electrons” (Iwa 0037).
Regarding claim 19, Rice discloses the method claim 12.
Rice does not disclose further comprising collimating, via a gate, the stream of electrons into an electron beam.
Iwa discloses an electron-beam excitation laser with a gate configured to control an electron-beam (fig. 7, emission device 2+14+13 comprises gate/control electrode 13 configured to control beam 200, 0038, 0041). Iwa further discloses a desire to focus beam + increase device/emission efficiency (0012, 0038).
def. collimate – to make parallel (Merriam-Webster)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a gate/control electrode 13 to control beam and maximally collimate the electron beam to direct more of the electron beam towards the VCSEL input and increase device efficiency (Iwa 0012, 0038).
Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Collimation of the electron beam is not inventive over the prior art as it simply optimizes known device/structure towards achieving a goal disclosed within the prior art (more parallel beams [Wingdings font/0xE0] more beam directed towards VCSEL [Wingdings font/0xE0] increased efficiency) (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 20, modified Rice discloses the method of Claim 19, wherein the VCSEL comprises an input end and an emission end (annotated fig. 1 Laser box comprises input (left side of box) and emission (right side of box)), the method further comprising directing the electron beam into the input end of the VCSEL, wherein the optical signal is emitted from the emission end of the VCSEL (electron beam 11 enters left side of box and optical signal 15 emitted from right side of box).
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Iwa and Yamaguchi (US-20130322484-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1.
Rice does not disclose wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Iwa discloses a multi-electron-beam laser with a plurality of lasers (fig. 7 plurality of lasers 3, 0040-0041) and an electron emission device comprising an array of electron sources (electron emission device 7+2s comprises array of 2s), and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one laser from the plurality of lasers (each 2 coupled to one 3 from the plurality of 3s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to provide a multi-electron-beam laser capable of emitting a plurality of laser beams at one time (Iwa 0041).
Modified Rice does not disclose wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises a plurality of ring- shaped arrays of electron sources, and wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Yamaguchi discloses an electron-beam-pumped light source with a ring-shaped array of electron beam sources used to pump one semiconductor light-emitting device (fig. 9a/b, four electron beam sources (four dark quarter-circles 30, see fig. 7b for correct labelling of 30) in ring-shaped array used to pump 20, 0099-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of ring-shaped arrays of electron sources, wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to improve uniformity of incident electron beams (Yamaguchi 0104).
Regarding claim 13, Rice discloses the method of Claim 12.
Rice does not disclose wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Iwa discloses a multi-electron-beam laser with a plurality of lasers (fig. 7 plurality of lasers 3, 0040-0041) and an electron emission device comprising an array of electron sources (electron emission device 7+2s comprises array of 2s), and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one laser from the plurality of lasers (each 2 coupled to one 3 from the plurality of 3s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs, wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources, and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to provide a multi-electron-beam laser capable of emitting a plurality of laser beams at one time (Iwa 0041).
Modified Rice does not disclose wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises a plurality of ring- shaped arrays of electron sources, and wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Yamaguchi discloses an electron-beam-pumped light source with a ring-shaped array of electron beam sources used to pump one semiconductor light-emitting device (fig. 9a/b, four electron beam sources (four dark quarter-circles 30, see fig. 7b for correct labelling of 30) in ring-shaped array used to pump 20, 0099-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of ring-shaped arrays of electron sources, wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to improve uniformity of incident electron beams (Yamaguchi 0104).
Claim(s) 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Iwa and Labrunie (US-5125000-A).
Regarding claim 5, Rice discloses the system of claim 1.
Rice does not explicitly disclose wherein the low voltage electron emission device is operatively coupled to a direct current (DC) power source.
Iwa discloses an electron-beam excitation laser with an electron emission device operatively coupled to a DC power source (fig. 7, emission device 2+14+13 operatively coupled to power source 7, 0038, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a DC power source to provide continuous laser-beam oscillation and steadier output (Iwa 0038).
Modified Rice does not disclose wherein the DC power source is configured to apply a voltage of less than five volts to the low voltage electron emission device to emit the stream of electrons.
Rice further discloses a desire and ability to operate the device at low electron beam voltages (col. 2 lines 40-45, col. 4 lines 35-40, col. 6 line 60 – col. 7 line 10).
Iwa discloses using an electron emission light source for optical communications (0002).
Labrunie discloses a low acceleration voltage electronic pumping-type semiconductor laser with a preferred acceleration voltage “below 10 kV” (col. 2 lines 50-55).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range) (MPEP 2144.05 III A). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range (less than 5 V) over prior art preferred range (0-10 kV), nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the DC power source configured to apply a voltage of less than five volts to the low voltage electron emission device to emit the stream of electrons + configure device to operate with less than five volts to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 16, Rice discloses the method of claim 12.
Rice does not disclose the power being direct current.
Iwa discloses an electron-beam excitation laser with an electron emission device operatively coupled to a DC power source (fig. 7, emission device 2+14+13 operatively coupled to power source 7, 0038, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a DC power source to provide continuous laser-beam oscillation and steadier output (Iwa 0038).
Modified Rice does not disclose wherein the DC power source is configured to apply a voltage of less than five volts to the low voltage electron emission device.
Rice further discloses a desire and ability to operate the device at low electron beam voltages (col. 2 lines 40-45, col. 4 lines 35-40, col. 6 line 60 – col. 7 line 10).
Iwa discloses using an electron emission light source for optical communications (0002).
Labrunie discloses a low acceleration voltage electronic pumping-type semiconductor laser with a preferred acceleration voltage “below 10 kV” (col. 2 lines 50-55).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range) (MPEP 2144.05 III A). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range (less than 5 V) over prior art preferred range (0-10 kV), nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the DC power source configured to apply a voltage of less than five volts to the low voltage electron emission device to emit the stream of electrons + configure device to operate with less than five volts to reduce power consumption.
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Molva (NPL Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 796-798 (1993), “Molva_NPL” cited and included herewith).
Regarding claim 6, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1.
Rice does not disclose wherein the electron source comprises a metallic tip.
Molva discloses a microgun-pumped semiconductor laser with an electron source comprising a metallic tip (fig. 1a/b MICROTIP, pg. 796/pg. 2 Abstract + left col. bottom par. “The microtips (Mo, Nb, or Si) are deposited on a conductive cathode…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electron source comprises a metallic tip to produce narrower beam and benefit from good electrical and thermal conductivity of metallic tip.
Regarding claim 17, Rice discloses the method of Claim 12.
Rice does not disclose wherein the electron source comprises a metallic tip.
Molva discloses a microgun-pumped semiconductor laser with an electron source comprising a metallic tip (fig. 1a/b MICROTIP, pg. 796/pg. 2 Abstract + left col. bottom par. “The microtips (Mo, Nb, or Si) are deposited on a conductive cathode…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electron source comprises a metallic tip to produce narrower beam and benefit from good electrical and thermal conductivity of metallic tip.
Claim(s) 11, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Scarlett (US-10394525-B2).
Regarding claim 11, Rice discloses the system of Claim 1.
Rice does not disclose further comprising a processor operatively coupled to the low voltage electron emission device, wherein the processor is configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal.
Scarlett discloses a quantum-optical random number generator with a photodetector + processor configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from an optical signal (figs. 1,5,6 photodetector 114 receives beam with random energy and sends to processor 116 to convert to random number, col. 7 line 10 – col. 8 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a processor (and all of the other necessary randomization elements from Scarlett fig. 1, 5, or 6) operatively coupled to the low voltage electron emission device, wherein the processor is configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal to provide true random number generating functionality to the device in Rice (Scarlett col. 11 lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 22, Rice discloses the method of Claim 12.
Rice does not disclose further comprising: receiving, via a processor, a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal; and determining, via the processor, a random output value based on the initial random value.
Scarlett discloses a quantum-optical random number generator with a photodetector + processor configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from an optical signal (figs. 1,5,6 photodetector 114/212 receives beam with random energy and sends to processor 116/214 to convert to random number, col. 7 line 10 – col. 8 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive, via a processor (and all of the other necessary randomization elements from Scarlett fig. 1, 5, or 6), a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal; and determining, via the processor, a random output value based on the initial random value to provide true random number generating functionality to the device in Rice (Scarlett col. 11 lines 30-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10, 21, 34-35 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 34-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 10, 21: Prior art of record does not disclose gate being further configured to operate as an external cavity resonator
Claims 34-35: Prior art of record does not disclose electron-beam driven VCSEL devices with optical signal bandwidths of at least 70 GHz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights