DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. 3. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being directed to unclear subect matter. Claim 1 in line 6 recites “components that can modify the signal’s properties A,” In line 12 it is recited “components A…” Is this a different “A” or should line line 6 read “components A that can modify the signal’s properties.” 4. Claims 2-6 each recite “The generator according to claim 1.” However, claim 1 does not actually describe the generator, it describes a “device ,” what the device comprises , and that it is “for” a self-testing quantum number generator. It is unclear if the intent for the dependent claims is to refer back to the “device” in the independent claims (i.e. would then read “the device according to claim 1”) or that independent claim 1 should read without “Device for” and thus claim the number generator and not the device. i .e. , “A self-testing quantum number generator…” Claim Objections 5. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to have a typo/grammatical error as in line 3 recites “requesting from signal source S by control unit CU signal with…” It appears that this should read “ a signal with…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 7. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As analyzed under the current 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; first, the claim is directed to a pro per statutory category . Second, under step 2A prong 1, the claim is directed to abstract ideas; specifically mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations and /or mental processes , or by pen and paper, i.e. generating a string of random numbers . They are highlighted below (underlined, italicized): 7. A method for generating a string of random numbers especially in lotteries and gaming , comprising steps of: - a) requesting from signal source S by control unit CU signal with interference property to be produced, - b) sending parameters x to components A by control unit CU - c ) transferring the signal from the source S, via component A, to interference region I and detector D, - d) measuring the signal intensities by the detector D and sending the results of the measurement d to the control unit CU, - e) returning the measurement results d as the output randomness, - f) returning the min-entropy Hmin(dIx) as the outcome of self-test, - g) repeating the step a-f . As currently recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these highlighted limitations can be interpreted as mathematical concepts and /or mental processes. Next, under step 2A prong 2, are there additional elements or combination of elements that apply or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The additional limitation s of “ Signal source S and control unit CU ” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic machine) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element s do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further the claim recites “ requesting from signal source S.. . ” However, this step is recited as a general means of requesting data for use by the abstract idea, and thus fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining steps. Such data requesting operations could be attached to any calculation and is necessary for use of the judicial exception, amounting to mere gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, under step 2B are there limitations indicative of an inventive concept (i.e. significantly more)? No, the additional limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element s are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept . See MPEP 2106.05(f) . Furthermore , requesting data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception represents mere data gathering and is insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have found these limitations , recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEPE 2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible. 8. Dependent claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non- statutory for at least the reason stated above, as they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend. The claims depend from claim 7 , but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite further limitations that abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental steps without reciting any additional limitations that make the claim any less abstract or that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims recite at least The closest prior art of record US Pub. 2015 / 0227343 teaches a system and method for generating random numbers. The system may include a random number generator (RNG), such as a quantum random number generator (QRNG) configured to self-correct or adapt in order to substantially achieve randomness from the output of the RNG. By adapting, the RNG may generate a random number that may be considered random regardless of whether the random number itself is tested as such. As an example, the RNG may include components to monitor one or more characteristics of the RNG during operation, and may use the monitored characteristics as a basis for adapting, or self-correcting, to provide a random number according to one or more performance criteria . However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest at least Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 9 , 152 , 381 – related to a generator of a truly random signal connected to an input and feedback device for the purpose of providing a user with real time feedback on the random signal. The user observes a representation of the signal in the process of an external physical event for the purpose of finding a correlation between the random output and what happens during the physical event. The system, in another embodiment enhances the ability of users to correlate the effects of human consciousness with the output of random physical processes. A third embodiment teaches the method and apparatus of generating values, in particular to generating values that are influenced by human consciousness, and detecting whether the values fall outside chance probabilities. US Pub. 2018 / 0095729 – related to processing within a computing environment, and in particular, to processing associated with generating true random numbers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL D YAARY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1249 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Trujillo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3677 . 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. /MICHAEL D. YAARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151