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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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: "bias device" in claim 1, which is being interpreted as per [0033] of the specification: “The bias device 202 may include a voltage-based bias device, such as a Low Drop Out regulator. In other embodiments, the bias circuit may include a current-based bias.”
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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller, Jr. (US 7,007,060).
Regarding claim 1, Miller, Jr. discloses a system for generating a quantum random number stream, the system comprising: a first quantum noise source (Figure 2, 16a); a first bias device, configured to bias the first quantum noise source such that the first quantum noise source generates a first noise (Figure 2, 11b, 13b); a second quantum noise source (Figure 2, 16b); a second bias device, configured to bias the second quantum noise source such that the second quantum noise source generates a second noise (Figure 2, 11b, 13b); a first differential amplifier further comprising a first input channel configured to receive the first noise from the first quantum noise source and a second input channel configured to receive the second noise from the second quantum noise source, wherein the differential amplifier uses a difference between the first noise and the second noise to generate a first amplified analog signal for output (Figure 2, 20); and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) device wherein the ADC device is configured to convert an amplified analog signal to the quantum random number stream and output the quantum random number stream (Figure 1, Sampler 30).
Regarding claim 2, Miller, Jr. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first quantum noise source or the second quantum noise source comprise a metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor, a junction field-effect transistor, or a tunnel diode (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Miller, Jr. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first quantum noise source and the second quantum noise source comprise different devices (Figure 2, 10a and 10b).
Regarding claim 5, Miller, Jr. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a corrective feedback signal is generated at least in part based on the amplified analog signal and provided to at least one of the differential amplifier, the first bias device, or the second bias device (Column 7, rows 7-31).
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Miller, Jr. discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
providing, by a first bias device, a first bias to the first noise source such that the first noise source generates the first noise (Figure 2, 11b, 13b); and providing, by a second bias device, a second bias to the second noise source such that the second noise source generates the second noise (Id.).
Regarding claim 13, Miller, Jr. discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the first bias and the second bias provide a voltage bias or a current bias to the first noise source and the second noise source, respectively (Id.).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pooser et al. (US 10,635,403), hereinafter Pooser.
Miller, Jr. does not disclose a system where both noise sources are the same. Pooser discloses a system wherein the first quantum noise source and the second quantum noise source comprise a same device (Figure 1, 112). Miller, Jr. and Pooser are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of true random number generators based on quantum phenomena. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the random number generator as disclosed by Miller, Jr to use the light source and photovoltaics as disclosed by Pooser because using photodetectors and an LED is lower cost than other QRNGs (Column 5, lines 37-38).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuan et al., “A 0.43pJ/bit True Random Number Generator”, hereinafter Kuan.
Miller, Jr. does not disclose the corrective feedback being generated by an analog accumulator or integrator. Kuan discloses a system wherein a corrective feedback signal is generated by at least one of an analog accumulator or an analog integrator (Figure 4). Miller, Jr. and Pooser are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of true random number generators. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the random number generator as disclosed by Miller, Jr. to use the integrator as disclosed by Kuan because “the offset calibration loop equivalently introduces a high-pass filter on the output. Therefore, not only the dc offset is removed, but also the impact of 1/f noise is alleviated” (Section II, D).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (US 6,857,003).
Regarding claim 7, Miller, Jr. discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a third quantum noise source (Figure 3, 110c); a third bias device, configured to bias the third quantum noise source such that the third quantum noise source generates a third noise (Figure 3, 111c); a fourth quantum noise source (Figure 3, 110d); a fourth bias device, configured to bias the fourth quantum noise source such that the fourth quantum noise source generates a fourth noise (Figure 3, 111d); and a second amplifier comprising a third input channel configured to receive the third noise from the third quantum noise source and a fourth input channel configured to receive the fourth noise from the fourth quantum noise source, wherein the differential amplifier uses a difference between the third noise and the fourth noise to generate a second amplified analog signal for output (Figure 3, 120b). Miller, Jr. does not disclose combining the amplifier outputs behind a differential amplifier.
Saito discloses a third differential amplifier wherein the third differential amplifier receives the first amplified analog signal and the second amplified analog signal and combines the first amplified analog signal and the second amplified analog signal to generate a combined analog signal for output (Figure 2, 33). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the random number generator as disclosed by Miller, Jr. to combine the randomness sources with a differential amplifier as disclosed by Saito because combining sources reduces periodic noise (Column 3, rows 52-56).
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Jr. as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Nordholt et al. (US 10,019,235), hereinafter Nordholt.
Miller, Jr. does not disclose using the output to generate a random number, nor does it disclose using an FPGA to modify the number by a hash function.
Regarding claim 9, Nordholt discloses a random number generator wherein a portion of the quantum random number stream is used to generate a quantum random number (Column 10, rows 31-34).
Regarding claim 10, Nordholt discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the quantum random number is accessed by a field programmable gate array configured to modify the quantum random number by at least one of a hash function or a folding technique prior to being output for a user device (Figure 13, 1306; “A suitable DRBG can be readily implemented in an FPGA or ASIC” (Column 23, rows 8-9)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the random number generator as disclosed by Miller, Jr. to include the hash function as disclosed by Nordholt because Applying a post-processing hash like SHA-512 makes the output compliant with NIST SP800-90B (Column 13, rows 61-65).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim corresponding with apparatus claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Jr. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 11,500,616), in view of “Why Constant Current is Better than Constant Voltage Biasing on Amplifiers” – Quantum Microwave, hereinafter Quantum Microwave.
Miller, Jr. does not disclose providing both a voltage and a current bias.
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the first bias provides a voltage bias to the first noise source and the second bias provides a current bias to the second noise source (Figure 1, IB2). Miller Jr. and Wang are considered analogous art because they both use biases. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the random number generator as disclosed by Miller, Jr. to use current bias as well as voltage bias as disclosed by Wang because a bias current is more reliable than a bias voltage (Quantum Microwave, p. 1)
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller Jr. in view of Hess, “What Is an Instrumentation Amplifier?”.
Regarding claim 17, it contains the same limitations as claim 1 disclosed by Miller, Jr. Miller, Jr. does not disclose the using of differential buffers.
Hess discloses a first differential buffer further comprising a first input channel configured to receive the first noise from the first quantum noise source a second input channel configured to receive a first corrective feedback signal, wherein the first differential buffer combines the first noise and the first corrective feedback signal to generate a first corrected noise (Figure 1, U2); and a second differential buffer further comprising a third input channel configured to receive the second noise from the second quantum noise source and a fourth input channel configured to receive a second corrective feedback signal wherein the second differential buffer combines the second noise and the second corrective feedback signal to generate a second corrected noise (Figure 1, U3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the random number generator as disclosed by Miller, Jr. to use the differential buffers as disclosed by Hess because using an instrumentation amplifier with the buffers allows the gain to be set by a single external resistor (p. 1).
Regarding claim 18, it corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Miller, Jr. discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first corrective feedback signal and the second corrective feedback signal are the same corrective feedback signal (Figure 3, 150, 131a, 131b).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, Jr. and Hess as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kuan.
Kuan discloses the same limitations as apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Strapp whose telephone number is (571)272-9343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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.
/M.S./
Matthew StrappExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-9343
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights