DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed 10/03/2022. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-3 and 5-20 are currently rejected. Claim 4 is currently objected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Drawings: Drawing objections have been withdrawn necessitated by amendments.
Abstract: Objection to the specification due to missing abstract has been withdrawn because Applicant submitted an abstract of the disclosure.
35 U.S.C. 103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered.
Applicant argues in pages 11-14 that Best in view of Margittai do not teach amended claims 1, 2, 7, and 14. Applicant specifically argues in page 12 that the combination in the non-final office action on 06/12/2026 of Best in view of Margittai do not teach a ring oscillator connecting sets of latches inputs and outputs directly. Applicant explains:
Thus, in Best, each internal latch receives its input from combinational logic, specifically, the output of the second logic gate rather than directly from another latch. The Office Action proposes to "substitute the latches in each CG as taught by Best for the inverting D latches as taught by Margittai." Office Action at page 4. Such a substitution changes only the latch cell itself; it does not remove the OR/XOR update logic that sits between successive latches in Best's architecture. Accordingly, the proposed combination does not produce a ring oscillator in which "the inverting output of each latch [is] coupled directly to the input of a next latch of the set of latches in the ring oscillator," as recited in claim 1 as amended.
Examiner finds this argument persuasive. However, see new grounds of Rejection necessitated by amendments using a new combination of Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars.
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 1-3, 7-9, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20170344343 A1), (cited in IDS on 03/08/2024) hereinafter “Best”, in view of Margittai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20090243734 A1) (cited in IDS on 10/03/2022), hereinafter “Margittai”, further in view of Hars (U.S. Patent No.: US 10469059 B1), hereinafter “Hars”.
Regarding Claim 1, Best teaches:
An integrated circuit comprising:
a set of latches organized to form a ring oscillator in a transparent mode (Fig. 1, e.g., shows a chain of chaotic pattern generators (CGs) 102 receiving pass signal (transparent mode); ¶0017, e.g., CGs include internal latches, and are organized in a ring topology; ¶0018, e.g., internal latch in CG is transparent when Pass signal is active), wherein the ring oscillator comprises an [even] number of signal inversions (Fig. 1, e.g., there are 9 CGs in the ring oscillator; Fig. 3, e.g., each CG contains a pair of inverters), and wherein each latch of set of latches comprises an input and an inverting output, the inverting output of each latch being coupled directly to the input of a next latch of the set of latches in the ring oscillator; and
digital logic circuitry coupled to the set of latches (Fig. 1, e.g., shows pair of inverters 106 and Flip-Flop 104 (digital logic circuitry)), wherein the digital logic circuitry is configured to determine an unpredictable output value of a state of outputs of the set of latches and generate a random digital number sample in a latch mode (¶0018, e.g., capture signal (latch mode) causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs; ¶0017, e.g., random digital value 103 is outputted).
Best does not teach:
wherein the ring oscillator comprises an odd number of signal inversions
the inverting output of each latch being coupled directly to the input of a next latch of the set of latches in the ring oscillator;
However, Margittai teaches using inverting D latches in a ring oscillator, where the number of inverting elements is an odd number. Margittai explains “The ring oscillator circuit has an odd number of ordered inverting elements. The ring oscillator circuit 200 may contain any number or order of inverting elements such as: NAND gates, NOR gates, NOT gates, or inverting memory elements as long as the total number of inverting elements is odd.” (Margittai: ¶0027)
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 substitute the latches in each CG as taught by Best for the inverting D latches as taught by Margittai. One would have been motivated to perform the substitution using these references because both references disclose ring oscillators using latches, and Margittai enhances the model of Best because “due to the odd number of inverting elements, a sequence of logic 101010 . . . propagates through the ring oscillator. Thus, the starter may cause the output ports of the inverting elements to oscillate.” (Margittai: ¶0025). Combination would cause for each latch in the CGs taught by Best to output an inverted signal, cause for an odd number of signal inversions in the ring.
Best in view of Margittai do not teach:
the inverting output of each latch being coupled directly to the input of a next latch of the set of latches in the ring oscillator;
However, Hars teaches:
the inverting output of each latch being coupled directly to the input of a next latch of the set of latches in the ring oscillator (Fig. 2, e.g., shows ring oscillator using gates 201-204; Column 5, Lines 33-37, e.g., logic gates receiving a ring-enable signal can consist of latches; Column 6 Line 64- Column 7 Line 5, e.g., controlled logic gate receiving clock signal is a D-latch, where the data input is connected to an output of a precious logic gate; Column 7 Lines 59-61, e.g., all logic gates can receive the clock input to receive the clock signal; Column 9, Lines 3-4, e.g., logic gates are directly connected);
Additionally, Best states in ¶0034 “Other latching embodiments could readily substitute for this one.” 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 the latches directly connected as taught by Hars with the ring oscillator as taught by Best in view of Margittai. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose ring oscillators in random number generation, and Hars enhances the model of Best in view of Margittai by allowing for a simpler design of a ring oscillator for random number generation.
Regarding Claim 2, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the set of latches comprises a first latch, a second latch, and a third latch (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., shows plurality of CGs (first, second, and third latches)), and wherein the first latch comprises:
a first input coupled to a second inverting output of the second latch (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving, as inputs, outputs from a previous CG; Margittai: Fig. 2, e.g., Latches invert output before being input to next latch);
a first inverting output coupled to a third input of the third latch (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving, as inputs, outputs from a previous CG; Margittai: Fig. 2, e.g., Latches invert output before being input to next latch);
an enable input configured to receive a capture signal (Best: ¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs; Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving capture signal (enable input)); and
a first non-inverting output, the first latch to propagate a state of the first input to the first non-inverting output directly and an inverted state of the first input to the first inverting output when the capture signal is inactive in the transparent mode and to stop propagating the state of the first input to the first non-inverting output and the first inverting output when the capture signal is active in the latch mode, wherein the state of the first input is one bit for generating the random digital number sample (Best: ¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs when the capture signal is active; ¶0017, e.g., random digital value 103 is outputted).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 2, further comprising an output circuit comprising the digital logic circuitry, the output circuit configured to sample and hold the random digital number sample (Best: ¶0018, e.g., captured state is sampled by FFs 104 (digital logic circuitry)).
Regarding Claim 7, Best teaches:
An integrated circuit comprising:
a ring oscillator comprising a set of latches arranged in a looping sequence (Fig. 1, e.g., shows a chain of chaotic pattern generators (CGs) 102; ¶0017, e.g., CGs include internal latches, and are organized in a looping sequence ring topology), the ring oscillator to operate as a free-running oscillator (FRO) in a first mode and to capture a ring state of the free-running oscillator in a second mode (Fig. 1, e.g., shows a chain of chaotic pattern generators (CGs) 102 receiving pass signal (first mode), or a capture signal (second mode); ¶0018, e.g., internal latch in CG is transparent (free-running oscillator) when Pass signal (first mode) is active, and capture signal (second mode) causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs ), wherein an input of a first latch of the set of latches is … coupled to an … output of a second latch of the set of latches that is earlier in the looping sequence (Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving, as inputs, outputs from a previous CG), and wherein an … output of the first latch is … coupled to an input of a third latch that is later in the looping sequence (Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving, as inputs, outputs from a previous CG); and
an output circuit coupled to the ring oscillator (Fig. 1, e.g., shows pair of inverters 106 and Flip-Flop 104 (output circuit)), wherein the output circuit is configured to receive the ring state, determine an unpredictable output value of the ring state, and output a random digital value based on the unpredictable output value ((¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs; ¶0017, e.g., random digital value 103 is outputted).
Best does not teach:
wherein an input of a first latch of the set of latches is directly coupled to an inverted output of a second latch of the set of latches that is earlier in the looping sequence, and wherein an inverted output of the first latch is directly coupled to an input of a third latch that is later in the looping sequence;
However, Margittai teaches using inverting D latches in a ring oscillator, where the number of inverting elements is an odd number. Margittai explains “The ring oscillator circuit has an odd number of ordered inverting elements. The ring oscillator circuit 200 may contain any number or order of inverting elements such as: NAND gates, NOR gates, NOT gates, or inverting memory elements as long as the total number of inverting elements is odd.” (Margittai: ¶0027)
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 substitute the latches in each CG as taught by Best for the inverting D latches as taught by Margittai. One would have been motivated to perform the substitution using these references because both references disclose ring oscillators using latches, and Margittai enhances the model of Best because “due to the odd number of inverting elements, a sequence of logic 101010 . . . propagates through the ring oscillator. Thus, the starter may cause the output ports of the inverting elements to oscillate.” (Margittai: ¶0025).
Best in view of Margittai do not teach:
wherein an input of a first latch of the set of latches is directly coupled to an inverted output of a second latch of the set of latches that is earlier in the looping sequence ), and wherein an inverted output of the first latch is directly coupled to an input of a third latch that is later in the looping sequence;
However, Hars teaches:
wherein an input of a first latch of the set of latches is directly coupled to an inverted output of a second latch of the set of latches that is earlier in the looping sequence, and wherein an inverted output of the first latch is directly coupled to an input of a third latch that is later in the looping sequence (Fig. 2, e.g., shows ring oscillator using gates 201-204; Column 5, Lines 33-37, e.g., logic gates receiving a ring-enable signal can consist of latches; Column 6 Line 64- Column 7 Line 5, e.g., controlled logic gate receiving clock signal is a D-latch, where the data input is connected to an output of a precious logic gate; Column 7 Lines 59-61, e.g., all logic gates can receive the clock input to receive the clock signal; Column 9, Lines 3-4, e.g., logic gates are directly connected);
Additionally, Best states in ¶0034 “Other latching embodiments could readily substitute for this one.” 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 the latches directly connected as taught by Hars with the ring oscillator as taught by Best in view of Margittai. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose ring oscillators in random number generation, and Hars enhances the model of Best in view of Margittai by allowing for a simpler design of a ring oscillator for random number generation.
Regarding Claim 8, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 7, wherein the set of latches comprises an odd number of signal inversions (Margittai: Fig. 2, e.g., Latches invert output before being input to next latch; Combination would cause for each CG to include an inverter on the output of the latch, resulting in an odd number of signal inversions in the ring topology).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 7 applies equally to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 7, wherein the ring oscillator is configured to receive a capture signal, wherein the ring oscillator is configured to permit cyclic pattern generation when the capture signal is not active and to stop the cyclic pattern generation when the capture signal is active (Best: ¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs when the capture signal is active. Internal latch in CG is transparent (cyclic pattern generation) when Pass signal is active (capture signal not active)).
Regarding Claim 14, Best teaches:
An integrated circuit comprising:
a ring oscillator comprising a set of latches arranged in a looping sequence (Fig. 1, e.g., shows a chain of chaotic pattern generators (CGs) 102; ¶0017, e.g., CGs include internal latches, and are organized in a looping sequence ring topology), the ring oscillator to generate a random digital value (¶0022, e.g., current state of the CGs are captured as random digital values), wherein a first latch of the set of latches is coupled to a second latch of the set of latches that is earlier in the looping sequence and to a third latch that is later in the looping sequence (Fig. 1, e.g., CGs are arranged in a sequence, where a CG is coupled to a CG to provide the input and another CG to receive the output), wherein the first latch comprises:
a first input coupled … to a second … output of the second latch (Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving, as inputs, outputs from a previous CG);
a first … output coupled … to a third input of the third latch (Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving, as inputs, outputs from a previous CG);
an enable input configured to receive a capture signal (¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs; Fig. 1, e.g., shows CGs receiving capture signal (enable input)); and
a first non-inverting output, the first latch to pass through a state of the first input to the first non-inverting output when the capture signal is inactive and to latch a final input state of the first input on the first non-inverting output when the capture signal is active, wherein the final input state is one bit of the random digital value (¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs when the capture signal is active; ¶0017, e.g., random digital value 103 is outputted).
Best does not teach:
a first input coupled directly to a second inverting output of the second latch;
a first inverting output coupled directly to a third input of the third latch;
However, Margittai teaches using inverting D latches in a ring oscillator, where the number of inverting elements is an odd number. Margittai explains “The ring oscillator circuit has an odd number of ordered inverting elements. The ring oscillator circuit 200 may contain any number or order of inverting elements such as: NAND gates, NOR gates, NOT gates, or inverting memory elements as long as the total number of inverting elements is odd.” (Margittai: ¶0027)
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 substitute the latches in each CG as taught by Best for the inverting D latches as taught by Margittai. One would have been motivated to perform the substitution using these references because both references disclose ring oscillators using latches, and Margittai enhances the model of Best because “due to the odd number of inverting elements, a sequence of logic 101010 . . . propagates through the ring oscillator. Thus, the starter may cause the output ports of the inverting elements to oscillate.” (Margittai: ¶0025).
Best in view of Margittai do not teach:
a first input coupled directly to a second inverting output of the second latch;
a first inverting output coupled directly to a third input of the third latch;
However, Hars teaches:
a first input coupled directly to a second inverting output of the second latch;
a first inverting output coupled directly to a third input of the third latch (Fig. 2, e.g., shows ring oscillator using gates 201-204; Column 5, Lines 33-37, e.g., logic gates receiving a ring-enable signal can consist of latches; Column 6 Line 64- Column 7 Line 5, e.g., controlled logic gate receiving clock signal is a D-latch, where the data input is connected to an output of a precious logic gate; Column 7 Lines 59-61, e.g., all logic gates can receive the clock input to receive the clock signal; Column 9, Lines 3-4, e.g., logic gates are directly connected);
Additionally, Best states in ¶0034 “Other latching embodiments could readily substitute for this one.” 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 the latches directly connected as taught by Hars with the ring oscillator as taught by Best in view of Margittai. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose ring oscillators in random number generation, and Hars enhances the model of Best in view of Margittai by allowing for a simpler design of a ring oscillator for random number generation.
Regarding Claim 15, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 14, wherein the ring oscillator is configured to implement a free-running oscillator (FRO) function to generate the random digital value (Best: ¶0018, e.g., Internal latch in CG is transparent (free-running oscillator) when Pass signal is active).
Regarding Claim 16, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 14, wherein the set of latches comprises an odd number of latches (Margittai: Fig. 2, e.g., Latches invert output before being input to next latch; Combination would cause for each CG to include an inverter on the output of the latch, resulting in an odd number of signal inversions in the ring topology).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 14 applies equally to claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 14, wherein the ring oscillator is configured to permit cyclic pattern generation when the capture signal is not active and to stop the cyclic pattern generation when the capture signal is active (Best: ¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs when the capture signal is active. Internal latch in CG is transparent (cyclic pattern generation) when Pass signal is active (capture signal not active)).
Regarding Claim 18, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 14, further comprising a flip-flop to sample and hold the random digital value when the capture signal is active, wherein the flip-flop is clocked by a clock signal that is independent from the capture signal (Best: ¶0018, e.g., captured state is sampled by FFs 104. FFs 104 are clocked by other clock signals in the system (independent from the capture signal)).
Regarding Claim 19, it is a method claim practiced by the apparatus of claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 5-6, 10, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars, further in view of Aoyagi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20180196641 A1), hereinafter “Aoyagi”.
Regarding Claim 5, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach the integrated circuit of claim 2. Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars do not teach:
wherein the digital logic circuitry comprises an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of latches, wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the state of outputs as the unpredictable output value and output the random digital number sample based on the parity value.
However, Aoyagi teaches:
wherein the digital logic circuitry comprises an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of [ring oscillators] (Fig. 4, e.g., shows Ring Oscillators coupled to High-Speed Clock Selecting Unit 104 and XOR gate 105), wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the state of outputs as the unpredictable output value and output the random digital number sample based on the parity value (¶0060, e.g., XOR gate is used for increase the number of toggles of data, hence it increases the randomness in the random number generation; Fig. 4, e.g., shows XOR gate 105 outputting signal Q (parity value) based on outputs of ring oscillators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the all-digital random number generator (RNG) 100 as taught by Best in view of Margittai to include the High-Speed Clock Selecting Unit 104 and XOR gate 105 to input signal Q to the FF outputting a random value as taught by Aoyagi. One would have been motivated to perform this modification because both references disclose random number generation using ring oscillators, and Aoyagi enhances the model of Best in view of Margittai because “This can increase the randomness in the random number generation.” (Aoyagi: ¶0060)
Regarding Claim 6, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the digital logic circuitry comprises:
an inverter (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., shows inverters 106 receiving capture signal);
… wherein the inverter is configured to receive a capture signal indicative of the latch mode and output an inverted capture signal (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., shows inverters 106 receiving capture signal, where one inverter outputs an inverted capture signal), wherein each of the set of latches is configured to receive the capture signal and output a latch state (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., CGs receive capture state),
Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars do not teach:
wherein the digital logic circuitry comprises:
…
a set of AND logic gates; and
an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of AND logic gates,
…
wherein each of the set of AND logic gates is configured to receive the inverted capture signal and the latch state from one of the set of latches and output a captured logic state,
wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the state of outputs as the unpredictable output value and generate the random digital number sample in the latch mode based on the parity value.
However, Aoyagi teaches:
a set of AND logic gates (Fig. 4, e.g., high-speed clock selecting unit 104 including AND gates); and
an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of AND logic gates (Fig. 4, e.g., shows XOR Gate 105 coupled to the AND gates in the high-speed clock selecting unit 104),
…
wherein each of the set of AND logic gates is configured to receive the … [select] signal and the [high-speed clock signal] from one of the set of [ring oscillators] and output a [high-speed clock signal] (¶0055, e.g., AND gates receive output form ring oscillators and selection signals to select a high-speed clock),
wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the state of outputs as the unpredictable output value and generate the random digital number sample in the latch mode based on the parity value (¶0060, e.g., XOR gate is used for increase the number of toggles of data, hence it increases the randomness in the random number generation; Fig. 4, e.g., shows XOR gate 105 outputting signal Q (parity value) based on outputs of ring oscillators).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 5 applies equally to claim 6. Combination would cause for the high-speed clock selecting unit 104 as taught by Aoyagi to receive inverted capture signal from inverters 106, and the state of the CGs to output a captured logic state as taught by Best.
Regarding Claim 10, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach the integrated circuit of claim 7. Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars do not teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 7, wherein the output circuit comprises an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of latches, wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the ring state as the unpredictable output value and output the random digital value based on the parity value.
However, Aoyagi teaches:
wherein the output circuit comprises an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of [ring oscillators] (Fig. 4, e.g., shows Ring Oscillators coupled to High-Speed Clock Selecting Unit 104 and XOR gate 105), wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the ring state as the unpredictable output value and output the random digital value based on the parity value (¶0060, e.g., XOR gate is used for increase the number of toggles of data, hence it increases the randomness in the random number generation; Fig. 4, e.g., shows XOR gate 105 outputting signal Q (parity value) based on outputs of ring oscillators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the all-digital random number generator (RNG) 100 as taught by Best in view of Margittai to include the High-Speed Clock Selecting Unit 104 and XOR gate 105 to input signal Q to the FF outputting a random value as taught by Aoyagi. One would have been motivated to perform this modification because both references disclose random number generation using ring oscillators, and Aoyagi enhances the model of Best in view of Margittai because “This can increase the randomness in the random number generation.” (Aoyagi: ¶0060)
Regarding Claim 12, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach:
wherein the output circuit comprises:
…
a flip-flop comprising an input coupled to an output of the [CGs], wherein the flip-flop is to output the random digital value when in the second mode (Best: Fig. 1, e.g., shows FF 104 receiving output from CGs; ¶0018, e.g., capture signal causes the Flip-Flop 104 to capture the current state of the CGs when the capture signal is active).
Best in view of Margittai do not teach:
wherein the output circuit comprises:
an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of latches, wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the ring state as the unpredictable output value and output the random digital value based on the parity value; and
a flip-flop comprising an input coupled to an output of the XOR reduction circuit, wherein the flip-flop is to output the random digital value when in the second mode.
However, Aoyagi teaches
an exclusive OR (XOR) reduction circuit coupled to the set of [ring oscillators] (Fig. 4, e.g., shows Ring Oscillators coupled to High-Speed Clock Selecting Unit 104 and XOR gate 105), wherein the XOR reduction circuit is configured to determine a parity value of the ring state as the unpredictable output value and output the random digital value based on the parity value (¶0060, e.g., XOR gate is used for increase the number of toggles of data, hence it increases the randomness in the random number generation; Fig. 4, e.g., shows XOR gate 105 outputting signal Q (parity value) based on outputs of ring oscillators); and
a flip-flop comprising an input coupled to an output of the XOR reduction circuit (Fig. 4, e.g., shows FF 106 connected to the output of the XOR gate 105)
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 10 applies equally to claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars in view of Aoyagi teach:
The integrated circuit of claim 12, further comprising:
an inverter coupled to receive a capture signal (Best: shows inverters 106 receiving capture signal); and
a set of logic gates coupled to the inverter and the XOR reduction circuit and each of the set of logic gates is coupled to one of the set of latches (Aoyagi: Fig. 4, e.g., shows high-speed clock selecting unit 104 including AND gates coupled to each ring oscillator and the XOR Gate; Combination would cause for the AND gates to be coupled to the CGs taught by Best, and for the inverters 106 taught by Best).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 10 applies equally to claim 13.
Regarding Claim 20, it is a method claim practiced by the apparatus of claim 5. It is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars, further in view of Tanamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 20160277025 A1), hereinafter “Tanamoto”.
Regarding Claim 11, Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars teach the integrated circuit of claim 7. Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars do not teach:
wherein the output circuit comprises a hash function to generate the random digital value based on the ring state.
However, Tanamoto teaches:
wherein the output circuit comprises a hash function to generate the random digital value (¶0086, e.g., hash generating circuit generates a cryptographic key by attaching a hash function to the output) …
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 modify the all-digital random number generator (RNG) 100 as taught by Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars to include the hash generating circuit on its output as taught by Tanamoto. One would have been motivated perform this modification using these references because both references disclose random number generation using ring oscillators, and Tanamoto enhances the model of Best in view of Margittai in view of Hars by allowing for the random number generation to be used for cryptographic key generation. See Tanamoto ¶0086.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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. It would be allowed for the reasons stated in Non-final office action on 06/12/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARLOS H DE LA GARZA whose telephone number is (571)272-0474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
/C.H.D./
Carlos H. De La GarzaExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-0474
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
