DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
[0044] defines the term “shmoo” as refers to a plot or the act of generating a plot that indicates the results of testing one or more component of the system, e.g., a shmoo indicates a response of the component when conditions with which the component operates are varied.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 line 2-3 “while operating an interface” should be “while operating the interface” as antecedently recited.
Dependent claims are also objected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drimer - US 7502815 in view of Talbot - US 8570881.
Regarding claim 1, Drimer teaches a system (Drimer, figure 1 integrated system 100) comprising:
an interface (Drimer, figure 1 illustrates serial communication interface implemented by transceiver [i.e., an interface]); and
a controller (Drimer, figure 1 illustrates a processor core [i.e., controller] that configured to control the operation of the transceiver) configured to:
receive an input data (Drimer, figure 1 illustrates the processor is configured to receive a signal of predetermined source data [i.e., an input data] and send it to the transceiver for generating random number);
transmit the input data across the interface while operating the interface with settings configured to cause instability in the interface (Drimer the signal of predetermined source data [i.e., the input data] is transmitted across the transceiver interface. Column 3 line 30-35 describes that random error characteristics of a serial data transceiver may serve as the basis for generating true random numbers, and column 3 line 40-51 describes the controller may stress the operability of the transceiver to influence an error rate, such that the transceiver may be exercised beyond its tolerance capabilities [i.e., settings] and force to operate in a higher failure mode and to produce random erroneous bit errors from the sampling of the input data. The stress may comprise, for example, affecting the pattern of the source data supplied to the receiver, increasing the delay between the output of the source data and the receipt by the receiver, attenuating the level of the serial input signal to the receiver, and/or lowering the stability of reference clock that may have been recovered by the receiver. Accordingly, the transceiver interface operates with setting configured to cause instability to generate error for true random number generation); and
receive a random number as an output of the interface (Drimer figure 1 illustrates the processor receives random number generated as an output of the transceiver).
Drimer does not teach or suggest receive a pseudorandom number. However, Talbot teaches receive a pseudorandom number (Talbot column 3 line 20-33 describe a margining of communication interface by transmitting known data, such as Pseudorandom number, while changing the communication interface operating condition and observing the result error)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined source data transmitted by the processor as disclosed in Drimer to be the pseudorandom number data as taught by Talbot. This modification would have been obvious because both references teaches data transmission across communication interface to determine bit error when the parameters of the communication interface is altered. Furthermore, having a pseudorandom number data as input for true random number generation would increase the randomness of the random number.
Regarding 2, the combined system of Drimer in view of Talbot teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the settings configured to cause instability in the interface include overclocked settings of one or more interface operating parameters (Drimer, column 13 line 43-46 claim 2 describes the controller may increase the serial data transfer rate to stress the clock recovery capabilities and/or the data resolution of the data detector. Thereby increasing the number of data errors. Column 3 line 40-43 also describes the controller stress the operability of the transceiver to exercise beyond its tolerance capabilities [i.e., overclocked settings of one or more interface operating parameters]).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of Drimer in view of Talbot teaches the system of claim 1, wherein transmitting the pseudorandom number across the interface comprises transmitting the pseudorandom number from a first endpoint of the interface to a second endpoint of the interface (Drimer figure 1 illustrates the transceiver interface having at least 2 endpoints for data transmission).
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of Drimer in view of Talbot teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the random number is generated from the pseudorandom number via errors introduced in the pseudorandom number (as modified, Drimer Column 3 line 32-35 describes that true random number is generated via bit random errors introduced in data transmission in the transceiver).
Claims 10-11 recite method claims that would be practiced by the apparatus claims 2 and 4. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 17 recites apparatus claim having similar limitations as apparatus claim 4. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the combined system of Drimer in view of Talbot teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the settings are configured to introduce random errors in the pseudorandom number via one or more of bit flips, cross talk, and read marginality (Drimer, column 3 line 40-45 describes a controller may stress the operability of the transceiver to influence an error rate for a greater probability of errors. In some cases, the receiver of the transceiver may be exercised beyond its tolerance capabilities and force to operate in a higher failure mode and to produce random erroneous bit errors. Thus, the settings are configured to introduce random error via bit flips).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drimer in view of Talbot as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Diamant - US 10333708.
Regarding claim 19, the combined system of Drimer in view of Talbot teaches the apparatus of claim 17, including using the pseudorandom number (Talbot teaches using pseudorandom data [i.e., pseudorandom number])., but the combined system of Drimer in view of Talbot does not teach the pseudorandom number generated via a pseudorandom number generation algorithm. However, Diamant teaches a pseudorandom number generated via a pseudorandom number generation algorithm (Diamant, column 1 line 10-14 describes a strategy to compute numbers deterministically using a software implemented algorithm [i.e., a pseudorandom number generation algorithm], this class of random number generators maybe known as deterministic random number generator or pseudo random number generators)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pseudorandom number generated via an algorithm disclosed by Diamant with the pseudorandom number as taught in Talbot. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, which is generating pseudorandom number. See MPEP 2141(III) (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12-16, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the claim objection as appropriate.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 18, the prior art of records does not teach or suggest a combination of limitations, including the controller is further configured to learn the settings configured to cause the instability in the interface during a training process as required in claim 5, or learning the overclocked settings during a training process that includes monitoring for the data transmission errors while iteratively adjusting one or more operating parameters of the interface as required in claim 12, or the controller is further configured to learn the settings during a training process that includes identifying margin ranges of interface operating parameters based on data transmission errors that occur while shmooing the interface operating parameters as required in claim 18.
Drimer - US 7502815 teaches a system and method for generating true random number generator based on random error characteristics of a serial data transceiver where a controller may stress the operability of the transceiver to influence an error rate for a greater probability of errors. In some cases, the receiver of the transceiver may be exercised beyond its tolerance capabilities and force to operate in a higher failure mode and to produce random erroneous bit errors from the sampling of the input data. However, Drimer does not teach or suggest the limitations required in claims 5, 12, and 18 as described above.
Talbot - US 8570881 teaches a technique for characterizing a communications interface includes determining a voltage margin and a timing margin of the interface based on data sampled by a sampling device of a receiver of the interface. The method includes incrementally varying a value of the parameter associated with the signal. The varying of the parameter is through a range of values of the parameter over the time period. The method includes determining a margin value of the receiver circuit associated with the parameter based, at least in part, on the sampled version of the signal. Talbot also defines margining is a technique for determining a maximum amount of signal distortion that can be tolerated by a system without affecting interpretation of the signal by a decision circuit in the system. However, Talbot does not teach or suggest the concept of learning the settings configured to cause the instability in the interface during a training process as required in claims 5, 12, and 18.
Kim - NPL D-RaNGe: Using Commodity DRAM Devices to Generate True Random Numbers with Low Latency and High Throughput - teaches a new DRAM-based true random number generator (TRNG) that leverages DRAM cells as an entropy source. The key idea is to intentionally violate the DRAM access timing parameters and use the resulting errors as the source of randomness. The technique specifically decreases the DRAM row activation latency (timing parameter tRCD) below manufacturer recommended specifications, to induce read errors, or activation failures, that exhibit true random behavior. Thus, Kim does not teach generating random number based on inducing transmission error in the interface.
Naslund - US 20200050430 describes two different types of random numbers generators, which are used in cryptographic systems, such as a true random number generator (TRNG) and a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG). The true random number generator collects entropy from the physical world. For instance, entropy data may be collected from low-level physical effects such as thermal noise and noise captured from a computer's microphone, or effects like mouse movements and hard disk seek times. The pseudorandom number generator typically processes the output of the TRNG to expand it in order to provide more bits and also, in some cases, provide additional post-processing in case the output of the TRNG is biased, or more generally, when the output statistical distribution is not the desired one as illustrated in figure 1. Thus, Naslund does not teach the concept of receiving pseudorandom number and generate random number by transmitting the pseudorandom number across an interface that operating in instability that induces transmission error.
Diamant - US 9774317 teaches a system for generating true random number generator using configurable bistable cell as illustrated in figure 7, wherein a PRNG is inputted to a plurality of bistable cells connected in a daisy chain. However, Diamant does not teach the concept of receiving pseudorandom number and generate random number by transmitting the pseudorandom number across an interface that operating in instability that induces transmission error.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
Prosecution Insights