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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/04/2026 with Attorney Docket Number 601041/2034 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This objection is specifically referring to the Non-Patent Literature titled “Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Patent Application No. 17/571,549, dated May 30, 2025”.
The information disclosure statement filed 05/04/2026 with Attorney Docket Number 601188/2307 has not been considered because it has been treated as a duplicate of the IDS addressed in the preceding paragraph. The only difference between the two documents appears to be the attorney docket numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Günay et al.("IC Random Number Generator Exploiting Two Simultaneous Metastable Events of Tetrahedral Oscillator"), hereinafter Günay.
Regarding claim 1, Günay discloses an electronic circuit for Random Number Generation (RNG) (Abstract), comprising: multiple inverters connected to one another in a ring and configured to generate an oscillating signal (Section II, paragraph 1); A contention-current generator, which is connected to a node at which an output of an inverter of the ring drives an input of a subsequent inverter of the ring with a drive current, the contention-current generator comprising at least a buffer configured to drive the node, at least during transition periods in which a voltage at the node transitions between opposite logic states, with a contention current that opposes the drive current and is weaker than the drive current (Figure 2, ring is Inverters 1-4, contention source is Inverters 5-6); and digitization circuitry, which is configured to generate a sequence of random numbers by sampling the oscillating signal generated in the ring (Section II, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, Günay discloses the contention-current generator in claim 1 comprises a bus holder (Figure 2, Inverters 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, Günay discloses the input of the buffer of the contention-current generator in claim 1 is driven by an output of a downstream inverter of the ring (Figure 2, Inverter 5 as the buffer).
Regarding claim 4, Günay discloses wherein the downstream inverter in claim 3 is the subsequent inverter in the ring (Figure 2, Inverter 4 as the downstream inverter).
Regarding claims 8-11, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-4, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Günay discloses wherein the contention-current generator in claim 1 is configured to increase a jitter of the voltage at the node during the transition periods (Section I, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günay in view of Smith et al. (“Analysis and Design of a Tetrahedral Oscillator”), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 5, Günay discloses the circuit as recited in claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose that the contention-current source’s drive strength is weaker than the ring oscillator.
However, Smith discloses the buffer in the contention-current generator has a weaker drive strength than the inverter generating the drive current (Section III A, paragraph 4).
Günay and Smith are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of ring oscillators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the design of the circuit of Günay with the limitations disclosed by Smith so the ring oscillator will oscillate at a higher frequency (Section III B, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses the contention current from claim 1 is weaker than the drive current by no more than a predefined ratio (Section III A, paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 5 and 6, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günay in view of Lee et al. (US 9,356,582), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Günay discloses the circuit as recited in claim 1 but fails to disclose the calibration circuit.
Lee discloses a calibration circuit (Abstract), which is configured to calibrate one or both of (i) the inverter of the ring (Column 2, lines 54-56) and (ii) the buffer in the contention-current generator, so as to ascertain that the contention current is weaker than the drive current by no more than a predefined ratio.
Günay and Lee are considered analogous because they are both in the field of ring oscillators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application modify the circuit disclosed by Günay to incorporate the calibration circuit disclosed by Lee to reduce the variation brought on by the circuit manufacturing process, optimize the performance of the manufacturing process, and allow the design to be made by multiple manufacturers. (Column 2, lines 59-65).
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges the arguments made regarding claims 1 and 8. For independent claim 1, Applicant asserts that Günay does not teach or suggest “the contention-current generator is configured to drive the node, at least during transition periods in which a voltage at the node transitions between opposite logic states, with a contention current that opposes the drive current and is weaker than the drive current” (Remarks, page 5, paragraph 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated below.
Regarding the contention current, Applicant asserts that Günay “does not discuss whether any current "opposes" another current” (Remarks page 6, paragraph 3). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding Figure 2, the loop that spans Inverter 1, 2, 3 and 4 has current flowing in the clockwise direction, while the loop that spans Inverters 1, 2 and 6 has current flowing in a counter-clockwise direction. The definition of contention, according to the 1989 Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, is “[t] he action of contending or striving together in opposition; strife, dispute, verbal controversy” (definition 2, Page 818, emphasis added). A current flowing in the opposite direction of the main ring is, by definition, a contention current.
Regarding the comparative strengths of the drive current and the contention current, Applicant argues that Günay “does not discuss […] whether any current is "weaker" or "stronger" than another”. (Remarks, page 6, paragraph 3). This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because it is inherent that the contention current is weaker than the driving current. Kusaga et al., “Four-stage ring oscillator for quadrature signal generation”, hereinafter Kusaga, discloses that if the contention current is stronger than the driving current, the oscillator will not be operable. “Note that the conventional tetrahedral oscillator does not oscillate, because it is not so easy to realize k [the strength of the contention current] < 1 [the strength of the driving current] shown in Fig. 1” (Section V A, paragraph 3). MPEP § 2121(I) states that prior art references are presumed to be operable, and a ring oscillator that is incapable of oscillating is not an operable ring oscillator. Therefore, the fact that the contention current source’s current must be weaker than the driving current is apparent from the fact that the circuit in Gunay is presumed to be a functioning oscillator.
Applicant argues that Gunay does not teach a contention-current generator [that] is configured to drive the node, at least during transition periods in which a voltage at the node transitions between opposite logic states. Applicant explains that “Günay does not refer to any sort of transition periods between logic states” and “does not attribute any importance to transition periods” (Remarks, page 6, paragraph 4). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument appears to be based on the assumption that Gunay teaches a contention current source that is always active (i.e., opposing) rather than a contention circuit that is active only during transition periods. The claim language, however, states that the contention circuit is active at least during transition periods between logic states. Assuming Gunay’s contention circuit is always active, Gunay’s contention circuit is also active at least during transition periods between logic states.
Regarding the combination of Günay and Smith for claims 1 and 8, Applicant argues that “Smith also does not teach or suggest a contention current that opposes and is weaker than a drive current, certainly not during transition periods between logic states” (Remarks, page 7, paragraph 1). This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection relies upon Gunay to teach these limitations.
For all of the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Günay is maintained.
Regarding independent claim 8, Applicant has amended in a like matter to independent claim 1. The rejection of claim 8 as being anticipated by Günay is maintained for the same reason as it is for claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 9-11, which depend on independent claims 1 and 8, respectively, the rejections as being anticipated by Günay are maintained because the claim language has not been amended and they depend on claims anticipated by Günay for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claims 5-6, and 12-13, which depend on independent claims 1 and 8, respectively, the rejections as being rendered obvious by the combination of Günay and Smith are maintained as the claim language has not been amended and they depend on claims anticipated by Günay for the reasons stated above.
Regarding newly presented claims 15 and 16, they have been addressed in the rejections above.
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 Matthew Strapp whose telephone number is (571)272-9343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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.
/M.S./
Matthew StrappExaminer, Art Unit 2182
(571)272-9343
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights