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 .
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 and 11 is 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 11 is unclear because the first two lines indicate that there are multiple counters that each receive an output of a respective XOR operation but the last two lines indicate that the claim covers the situation where there is only one XOR operation. The two parts of the claim are inconsistent and therefore the claim as a whole is unclear.
Claim 3 includes essentially the same language and is unclear for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, it recites mental steps as indicated by the italicized language below:
Receiving a random bitstream from an entropy source;
Maintaining, with an entropy evaluator, a repetition count of one or more patterns of multiple bits successively included in the random bitstream; and
Responsive to the repetition count exceeding a threshold, generating an alert regarding the entropy source.
The mental steps identified above are broad enough to encompass the RCT continuous health test described in PQShield or NIST SP 800-90B. The RCT looks for the sameness between consecutive bits and maintains a count. Consider a person receiving a finite string of random bits printed to paper where the random bits were collected from an actual random number generator. Using pen and paper, a person could compare two-bit sequences to see if they are the same and keep a count of when they are. A person could reasonably determine if the count exceeds a threshold and generate an alert.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. While the claim recites the additional element of receiving a random bitstream from an entropy source, this additional element represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional element of an entropy evaluator. The specification at [0073] explains how the invention can be implemented in software. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 therefore includes the implementation of the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. The entropy evaluator limitation therefore amounts to mere instructions to “apply it” (i.e., the abstract idea) on a general purpose computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at step 2B is the same as for step 2A prong 2.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend claim 1 to make it clear that the method of claim 9 is practiced by the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 12-14, these claims merely recite additional mental steps. The analysis for claims 10 and 12-14 is therefore the same as for claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7- 9, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PQShield (WO 2022/112788) as cited in IDS filed 5/14/2024.
Regarding claim 1, PQShield teaches:
An entropy source to generate a random bitstream (Fig. 11 elem. 905 as entropy source, [0074]); and
An entropy evaluator communicatively connected to the entropy source to receive the random bitstream (Fig. 9 elems. 920 as entropy evaluator), the entropy evaluator comprising:
A first counter to maintain a repetition count of one or more patterns of multiple bits successively included in the random bitstream (Fig. 11 elem. 920 showing repetition count test that counts runs of 1s or 0s, [0081]; and
An alert generator communicatively coupled to the first counter to generate an alert in response to the repetition count exceeding a defined threshold ([0075], [0081] describing fatal cutoff threshold).
Regarding claim 7, PQShield teaches a system wherein the repetition count is based on one or more derivatives of the random bit stream ([0081] showing first derivative).
Regarding claim 8, it merely describes characteristics of a random bitstream (i.e., that is composed of one or more patterns of multiple bits an may include any possible patter of multiple bits having a bit length of x bits, wherein x is greater than 1. It is noted that PQShield's RCT circuitry detects patterns of successive two bits stuck at 1. So the reference discloses detecting a pattern of a 2-bit sequence of 1’s. PQShield therefore teaches the additional limitation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9 and 14-15, they are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 7-8, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 16 and 19-20, they are apparatus claims directed to just the entropy evaluator of entropy generator claims 1 and 7-8, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B as cited on IDS filed 5/14/2024.
Regarding claim 2, PQShield teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. While PQShield teaches a health test circuit counting repeated identical samples (PQShield [0081] describing RCT continuous health test), the reference does not explicitly tech a system wherein the repetition count is based on one or more exclusive-or operations of a current bit of the random bitstream with one or more previous bits of the bitstream.
NIST SP 800-90B teaches a system where a current and previous bit of a random bitstream are compared to determine if they are the same (pp. 25-26 § 4.4.1 Repetition Count Test). Official notice is hereby taken of the facts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize (1) “sameness” of two inputs is a XNOR function and (2) that XNOR is the same as an XOR followed by an inverter.
With the teachings of the references and the well known facts before him/her, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have first recognized that while the PQShield reference teaches a RCT test implemented in hardware, it does not describe details of the hardware implementation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the standard (NIST SP800-90B) and basic electrical/computer engineering knowledge (i.e., the fact found through official notice) to fill the gap in PQShield’s disclosure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have modified PQShield’s generic hardware to implement the NIST SP800-90B algorithmic test for “sameness” of consecutive bits using the well-known XNOR function implemented as a XOR gate followed by an inverter. This modification would have been obvious because it is the application of a known technique (NIST SP800-90B algorithm) to a known device (PQShield’s system) ready for improvement (i.e. filling the clear gap in the disclosure) to yield predictable results (creating hardware circuitry implementing a test required by the standard).
Regarding claim 3, PQShield teaches a system wherein the first counter is one of a set of multiple counters of the entropy evaluator, and wherein each counter of the set of multiple counters receives an output of a respective XOR operation of the one or more XOR operations (PQShield [0083] 4 noise condition output tests measure bias (no XOR) and bias in XOR with the sequence delayed by 1, 2, and 3 bit positions; computing the autocorrelation for a fixed delay requires counting the non-zero XOR outputs).
Regarding claim 4, PQShield teaches a system wherein each respective XOR operation includes as a first operand the current bit of the random bitstream and includes as a second operand a previous bit of the one or more previous bits of the random bitstream (PQShield [0083]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, they are method claims corresponding to claims 2 and 3, respectively. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, it is directed to just the entropy evaluator circuit of corresponding to entropy generator claim 2. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B and further in view of Balasch, J. et al., Design and Testing Methodologies for True Random Number Generators Towards Industry Certification, 2018 IEEE 23rd European Test Symposium (ETS), pp. 1-11. (Year: 2018).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 2 above. While the combination of PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B teaches an autorcorrelation test that shifts the input sequence by 1-3 bits, the combination of PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B does not teaching shifting by 4 bits. The combination therefore does not teach the additional limitation of claim 5. Balasch on the other hand teaches an autocorrelation test with a shift of between 1 and 5000 bits, which includes 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the combination of PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B using the teaching of Balasch to increase the number of bit positions tested from 3 to 4. This modification would have been obvious because it would improve the ability of the autocorrelation test to detect faults.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 5. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B and further in view of Muller, Linux/dev/random – A New Approach (as cited on IDS filed 5/14/2024.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 2 above. The combination of PQShield in view of NIST SP 800-90B does not teach the additional limitation of claim 6. Muller on the other hand teaches a system wherein to maintain the repetition count includes to reset the repetition count in response to a positive outcome of one XOR operation of the one or more XOR operations (Muller p. 30 last two complete paragraphs describing how the health test is restarted if a health test fails). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of PQShield to restart the health tests after discovering an error as taught by Muller. This modification would have been obvious because it would allow the system to recover from faults that are not repeatable.
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 6. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is directed to just the entropy evaluator circuit of corresponding to entropy generator claim 6. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PQShield in view of Rozic, which was cited on the IDS filed 5/14/2024.
Regarding claim 8, PQShield teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. PQShield does not teach the additional limitation of claim 8. Rozic on the other hand teaches a system
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TRNG-IP-76 FIPS-Approved True Random Number Generators, archived by the Wayback Machine on 5/6/2021, describes a system where HW (i.e., health tests) of the randomness source and the output of the optional conditioning function are performed by the same device. See only figure in reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Caldwell whose telephone number is (571) 272-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-17:30.
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, Technology Center Director John Cottingham. can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights