DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/080,816 filed on 12/14/2022 is presented for examination by the examiner. 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per Claims 1 and 14, they each recite the limitation "the radiation source" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claims 2-13, they are rejected for the reasons presented above, due to their dependency upon rejected Claim 1.
Additionally per Claim 14, it recites an “apparatus” but fails to include any concrete, physical, or tangible elements that could constitute a patentable apparatus. See MPEP § 2106.03, a “machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices” and a “manufacture is a tangible article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.” In this case, the claimed apparatus comprises a series of steps (i.e. a method), rather than a concrete thing consisting of parts or devices. Therefore, a claim to an “apparatus” comprising a method or series of steps is unclear and indefinite, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest found prior art is Figotin et al. (US 2003/0018674), Park et al. (US 2020/0326912), and Tatarkiewicz et al. (US 11,036,473).
Figotin discloses a random number generator comprising an alpha-radiation source, a detector of the alpha particles emitted from the radiation source to generate a pulse in response to the detection of particle(s), a preamplifier followed by a linear amplifier to amplify and shape the signal from the detector, and a voltage discriminator to filter out improper pulses originated from the ionizing radiation other than the alpha particles coming from the source, i.e. to select all pulse signals which have the proper amplitude of the full alpha absorption peak.
Park similarly discloses a random number generator comprising a particle detector to detect particles emitted from a radioactive isotope, a preamplifier followed by a pulse shaper to amplify and shape the pulses in the detection signal, and a discriminator to generate a pulse(s) having the specific shape of the amplified and shaped signal.
Tatarkiewicz discloses a random number generator comprising a detector/senso to detect electrons stemming from the decay of a radioactive source, an amplifier comprising a pre-amplifier to generate an amplified signal, a filter to filter the amplified signal, and a signal processor coupled to the filter to determine if the filtered signal corresponds to the electron emitted in a decay of nickel and not by other energetic ionizing particle(s).
However, none of the closest found references teach an entropy generator comprising a filter configured to filter an amplified signal of detected particles from a radiation source, and a comparator configured to generate a pulse based on a result of comparing the filtered signal with a threshold. Moreover, the Examiner does not find a motivation to combine the various architectures taught by the closest found references such that the results would have been desirable or predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW SANDIFER whose telephone number is (571)270-5175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, James Trujillo can be reached at (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.
/MATTHEW D SANDIFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights