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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 2 is not secured with solid black lines. See MPEP 608.02.V, 37 CFR 1.84 (a)(1).
Furthermore, the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the demodulation device configured to after conversion of the analog signal, a demodulation of the digital signal at the frequency f of the excitation signal as in claim 4 and claim 11 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See specification p. 14 references NIST 800-22, and AIS 31.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract refers to the purported merits of the invention: “[a] gain in terms of simplicity of implementation, bulk and/or manufacturing cost is thus achieved for making physical true random number generators”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).I.B.
Furthermore, the specification is objected to because claim element “excitation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below for specific details. No new matter should be entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 line 2 recites “the system”. For antecedent basis reasons, this should recite “the excitation system”. Claims 2-4 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claim 5 line 9 recites “the generator”. For antecedent basis reasons, this should recite “the chaotic physical true random number generator”. Claims 6-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 5 based on dependence. Claims 6-11 similarly recite “the generator” in the preamble and are further objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
excitation device as in claim 1, and claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18, and 20-21 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “an excitation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below as to the specific reasons these elements are lacking structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function that result in this associated rejection for lack of written description of these required elements.
Furthermore, claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “an excitation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification merely describes the functions performed by the excitation device, without describing a structure of the device itself. See e.g., specification p. 10 last partial sentence – p. 11 first partial paragraph. Furthermore the drawings merely depict the excitation device as a black box. See figure 1 device 11.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he excitation system according to claim 1, intended to be integrated into a micro-electromechanical system comprising a resonant physical component”. It is not clear if the integration is being positively claimed, or whether this is some aspirational post claim result. For purposes of examination, examiner interprets as “[t]he excitation system according to claim 1, wherein the excitation system is integrated into a micro-electromechanical system” or equivalent. Furthermore, it is unclear whether “a resonant physical component” is the same “resonant physical component” as in claim 1, or a different or additional resonant physical component. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the same.
Claim 4 recites “a demodulation device configured to implement either one of the following steps: - before conversion of the analog signal, a demodulation of the analog signal at the frequency f of the excitation signal, and – after conversion of the analog signal, a demodulation of the digital signal at the frequency f of the excitation signal”. It is unclear whether the device is configured for both options, or configured for one of the two options. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets as the device is configured for one of the options. Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 lines 9-10 recite “the generator further comprises an excitation device of the physical component resonant”. It is unclear whether the excitation devices is within the physical component resonant or whether the excitation device excites the physical component resonant. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that the excitation device excites the physical component resonant. Claims 6-11 inherit the same deficiency as claim 5 based on dependence.
Claim 10 recites that the resonant physical component comprises a micro/nano resonator, such as a double-embedded micro/nano-beam. It is unclear whether the micro/nano resonator must be a double-embedded micro/nano-beam or any micro/nano resonator beam, or what other types of micro/nano resonator other than a double-embedded micro/nano-beam are required. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that the micro/nano resonator must be a double-embedded micro/nano-beam.
Claim 21 recites “an analog signal representative of changes in amplitude of vibration of the resonant physical component and an analog signal representative of changes of phase of the resonant physical component being acquired during the acquisition step”. It is unclear whether each of these analog signals is the same analog signal as in claim 12, or different. For purposes of Examination, examiner interprets as different, because claim 12 recites only a single analog signal, and claim 21 recites two analog signals.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040083248 A1 Saito (hereinafter “Saito”).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches the following:
an excitation system (fig 2 -20) for a resonant physical component (fig 2-40), the system comprising an excitation device configured to:
- excite the resonant physical component with a determined excitation signal to set the resonant physical component in a dynamic multi-stability mode (fig 5, fig 1 unstable mode, resulting in multi-stability as in figure 1, fig 5 [0015],[0032],[0034-0036]) and
- modulate the excitation signal, so that the resonant physical component has a chaotic behaviour and that an analog signal originating from the resonant physical component is representative of the chaotic behaviour of the resonant physical component, the excitation system having no feedback loop ([0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Saito teaches the following:
the excitation system intended to be integrated into a micro-electromechanical system comprising a resonant physical component for use thereof in the generation of a sequence of true random numbers on the basis of said analog signal (fig 2 output of A/D converter, as in fig 5, random 0 and 1 output)).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Saito teaches the following:
- an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert the analog signal originating from the resonant physical component into a digital signal representative of the analog signal (fig 2-50),
- a digital processing device configured to generate a sequence of true random numbers on the basis of said digital signal (fig 2 60, [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Saito teaches the following:
a chaotic physical true random number generator (fig 2) including:
- a resonant physical component (fig 2-40),
- an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert an analog signal originating from the resonant physical component into a digital signal representative of the analog signal (fig 2-50),
- a digital processing device configured to generate a sequence of true random numbers on the basis of said digital signal (fig 2 60, [0031]), wherein the generator further comprises an excitation device of the physical component resonant configured to:
- excite the resonant physical component with a determined excitation signal to set the resonant physical component in a dynamic multi-stability mode (fig 5, fig 1 unstable mode, resulting in multi-stability as in figure 1, fig 5 [0015],[0032],[0034-0036]), and
- modulate the excitation signal, so that the resonant physical component has a chaotic behaviour and that the analog signal to be converted is representative of the chaotic behaviour of the resonant physical component, the excitation device having no feedback loop ([0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Saito teaches the following:
excitation of a resonant physical component with a determined excitation signal to set the resonant physical component in a dynamic multi-stability mode (fig 5, fig 1 unstable mode, resulting in multi-stability as in figure 1, fig 5 [0015],[0032],[0034-0036]),
- modulation of the excitation signal, so that the resonant physical component has a chaotic behaviour, the excitation and modulation steps being implemented by an excitation device with no feedback loop ([0029-0030]),
- acquisition of an analog signal, originating from the resonant physical component and representative of the chaotic behaviour of the resonant physical component (fig 2 from oscillating circuit to A/D converter),
- conversion of the analog signal into a digital signal representative of the acquired analog signal (fig 2 A/D converter 50), then
- generation of a sequence of true random numbers from said digital signal (fig 2 output of A/D converter, as in fig 5, random 0 and 1 output).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 12 analysis, Saito teaches the following:
wherein the conversion of the analog signal comprises sampling of the analog signal at a sampling frequency or in steps selected according to the voltage of the excitation signal and a modulation frequency δf with which the excitation signal is modulated ([0035], due to the method claim including a contingent “or” clause, only one contingency is required to satisfy the claim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-11, 13-18, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), and 35 USC 112(b) and rewritten in independent form including 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. Applicant claims apparatus and methods related to excitation a resonant physical component to generate chaotic behavior and/or a sequence of true random numbers. The apparatus as in claim 5 comprises:
a chaotic physical true random number generator including:
- a resonant physical component,
- an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert an analog signal originating from the resonant physical component into a digital signal representative of the analog signal,
- a digital processing device configured to generate a sequence of true random numbers on the basis of said digital signal, wherein the generator further comprises an excitation device of the physical component resonant configured to:
- excite the resonant physical component with a determined excitation signal to set the resonant physical component in a dynamic multi-stability mode, and
- modulate the excitation signal, so that the resonant physical component has a chaotic behaviour and that the analog signal to be converted is representative of the chaotic behaviour of the resonant physical component, the excitation device having no feedback.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter are the following limitations in combination with the remaining limitations:
a demodulation device either before or after conversion of the analog signal, demodulating at the frequency f of the excitation signal as in claim 4, claim 11, and claim 18;
the analog signal to be converted is representative of changes in amplitude and/or phase vibration of the resonant physical component excited by the modulated excitation signal as in claim 6, and claim 21;
the dynamic multi-stability mode is a non-linear dynamic bistable mode called Duffing mode as in claim 7 and claim 13;
the limitations with respect to the peak voltage and frequency of the excitation signal and modulated excitation signal as in claims 8-9, claim 14, claim 15, claim 16, and claim 17;
wherein the resonant physical component comprises a double-embedded micro/nano-beam as in claim 10;
wherein the dynamic multi-stability mode has two distinct wells as in claim 16;
Saito is the closest prior art found. Saito teaches the claimed invention according to the above claim mappings. Saito is silent with respect to, not teaching or suggesting the above recited limitations.
F. Yu et al., A Survey on True Random Number Generators Based on Chaos, Hindawi, Research Article, Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Volume 2019, article ID 2545123, (2019), hereinafter (“Yu”) discloses a systematic review of true random number generators based on chaos including continuous time chaotic systems and discrete time chaotic systems (abstract, fig 2-4, fig 6). Yu does not, however, teach or suggest the above recited limitations.
M. Defoort, et al., A dynamical approach to generate chaos in a micromechanical resonator, Microsystems & Nanoengineering, Nature, Article Open Access, 2021, disclosure by inventor of aspects of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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 on 571-272-3701. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights