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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(o) because the legend is not suitable in reference to “noise source”. In figures 1, 2, 4, and 5, “noise source” element 12 is a block that produces M bits, however Figure 1 also refers to each of the elements within element 12 as a “noise source”. A collection of elements is not the same as each individual element, so it is not clear for understanding which element is referred to when “noise source” is referenced. The Examiner notes, if the legends of the elements are changed, the corresponding specification will need to be corrected to be consistent with the drawings.
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. 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.
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:
Entropy enhancement component in claims 1, 11;
Conditioning component in claim 2;
Health test block in claim 2;
Post processing component in claims 5, 16;
Health tests block in claim 20; and
Means for maintaining entropy in claim 20.
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.
As to claims 1, 11’s Entropy enhancement component, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: The embodiments of Figs. 2, 4, 5 and corresponding disclosure in the applicant’s specification.
As to claim 2’s Conditioning component, no corresponding structure is found in the specification.
As to claim 2’s Health test block, no corresponding structure is found in the specification.
As to claim 5, 16’s Post processing component, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: inverter, flip-flops, and XOR gate as disclosed in Fig. 4; [0030] of the applicant’s specification.
As to claims 20’s Health tests block, no corresponding structure is found in the specification.
As to claim 20’s Means for maintaining entropy, the examiner interprets the means plus function limitation to the corresponding structure: The embodiments of Figs. 2, 4, 5 and corresponding disclosure in the applicant’s specification.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the M sources". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only “a noise source” is declared prior, the interpretation of “a” is declaration of a single object. For examination purposes, “the M sources” will be interpreted as “the noise source”.
Claims 2, 6, 10 recites the limitation “the M noise sources”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only “a noise source” is declared prior, the interpretation of “a” is declaration of a single object. For examination purposes, “the M noise sources” will be interpreted as “the noise source”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on claim 1 without correcting the deficiencies of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim limitations “health test block”, “conditioning component”, and “health tests block” 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 “health test block” and “health tests block” are merely described with their functionality in paragraphs [0016]-[0021]. There does not appear to be corresponding structure of the health test(s) blocks. The “conditioning component” is merely described with functionality in paragraphs [0016], [0041]. There does not appear to be corresponding structure of the conditioning component. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 2, 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of the health test(s) block and conditioning component. The specification does not demonstrate the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 11, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. US 20210026602 A1, hereinafter “Wu”) in view of Barak et al. (US 20080270502 A1, hereinafter “Barak”).
As per claim 1, Wu teaches A random number generator comprising: an entropy enhancement component (EEC) configured to receive an input sequence of the noise bits from the M sources (Wu: Fig. 1 element 14; [0017]), process the input sequence of the noise bits (Wu: Fig. 1 element 14; [0018]), and output a random sequence of bits, wherein the random sequence of bits is more random than the input sequence of the noise bits (Wu: Fig. 1 element 14; [0018]).
However, while Wu discloses different embodiments of entropy sources (Figs. 2-6), Wu does not explicitly disclose an embodiment using noise. Thus, Wu does not teach a noise source configured to generate M noise bits;
Barak teaches a noise source configured to generate M noise bits (Barak: Fig. 2 elements 232-238; [0035]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, an entropy source of Wu with the analog random number generator of Barak. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose generating true random numbers, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (generating random numbers using noise).
As per claim 5, Wu/Barak further teaches The generator of claim 1, wherein the EEC comprises at least one of a) a post processing component configured to process the input sequence of the noise bits, b) a randomizer, and c) a set of exclusive-OR gates (Wu: Fig. 1 element 14; [0017]).
As per claim 9, Wu/Barak further teaches The generator of claim 1, wherein the EEC comprises: a linear feedback shift register configured to generate a pseudorandom sequence of bits, and an exclusive-OR gate (Wu: [0018]).
As per claim 10, Wu/Barak further teaches The generator of claim 9, wherein the exclusive-OR gate receives one of the noise bits from the M noise sources, and the exclusive-OR gate processes the received noise bit from the M noise sources to one of the pseudorandom sequence of bits from the linear feedback shift register (Wu: [0018]).
As per claims 11, 16, 18, the claims are directed to a method that implements the same or similar features as the random number generator of claims 1, 5, 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 19, Wu/Barak further teaches The method of claim 16, further comprising maintaining an entropy value not less than 0.9 even when one of the noise sources fail health testing (Barak: [0043]).
As per claim 20, the claim is directed to a random number generator that implements the same or similar features as the random number generator of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 2-4, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu/Barak in further view of Chan (US 20180067723 A1, hereinafter “Chan”).
As per claim 2, Wu/Barak teaches The generator of claim 1,
However, while Wu discloses an entropy enhancement engine, Wu does not explicitly disclose internal details of the entropy enhancement engine. Thus, Wu does not teach a conditioning component configured to condition the random sequence of the bits and output M random bits; and a set of heath tests blocks configured to health-test the input sequence of the noise bits from the M noise sources, wherein the EEC is configured to maintain entropy even when only one of the noise sources passes health-testing.
Chan teaches a conditioning component configured to condition the random sequence of the bits and output M random bits (Chan: Fig. 1 element 160; [0029]);
and a set of heath tests blocks configured to health-test the input sequence of the noise bits from the M noise sources (Chan: Fig. 3 element 350; [0068]; the digital signal processor is interpreted as the conditioning component because it is used to reduce bias [0053], which is the function described in [0029]), wherein the EEC is configured to maintain entropy even when only one of the noise sources passes health-testing (Chan: Fig. 3 element 350; [0068]; claim 3, wherein the health test provides feedback when the noise source does not meet performance specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the entropy enhancement engine of Wu with the conditioning component of Chan. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose improving the randomness of the random number generator, and the conditioning component of Chan reduces bias and/or increase the entropy density of the output bits ([0029]).
As per claim 3, Wu/Barak teaches The generator of claim 1,
Wu does not teach wherein the output random sequence of bits from the EEC has "1s" and "0s" uniformly distributed within the output sequence.
Chan teaches wherein the output random sequence of bits from the EEC has "1s" and "0s" uniformly distributed within the output sequence (Chan: [0040], last sentence).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the entropy enhancement engine of Wu with the conditioning component of Chan for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 4, Wu/Barak/Chan further teaches The generator of claim 3, wherein, in the output random sequence, a number of ones is approximately equal to a number of zeros (Chan: [0040], last sentence).
As per claims 12-15, the claims are directed to a method that implements the same or similar features as the random number generator of claims 2, 2, 3, 4, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 6, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu/Barak in further view of Mandich (US 20230353130 A1, hereinafter “Mandich”).
As per claim 6, Wu/Barak teaches The generator of claim 1,
However, while Wu discloses an entropy enhancement engine, Wu does not explicitly disclose internal details of the entropy enhancement engine. Thus, Wu does not teach wherein the EEC comprises: a post processing component including a set of inverters receiving the input sequence of the noise bits from the M noise sources, a set of T-type synchronous flip-flops, and a set of two-input XOR gates.
Mandich teaches wherein the EEC comprises: a post processing component including a set of inverters receiving the input sequence of the noise bits from the M noise sources, a set of T-type synchronous flip-flops, and a set of two-input XOR gates (Mandich: Fig. 5; [0032]; [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the entropy enhancement engine of Wu with the output circuit of Mandich. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose generating a random binary stream, and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (circuitry for outputting random binary stream).
As per claim 17, the claim is directed to a method that implements the same or similar features as the random number generator of claim 6, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in this Office Action and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Examiner suggests modifying the claim language such that it is claiming the data path of one noise bit and recite the data path is the same for each noise bit, rather than for all noise bits at once, may be clearer for understanding the invention.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 7-8, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: a post processing component including a set of inverters receiving the input sequence of the noise bits from the M noise sources, wherein, for a pair of the T-type synchronous flip-flops, a first flip-flop of the pair receives input from one of the inverters and a second flip-flop of the pair receives input from one of the noise bits.
Wu discloses enhancing entropy from static or dynamic entropy sources ([0017]) that may be XOR with a linear feedback shift register ([0018]). Wu does not suggest post processing including a set of inverters receiving noise bits nor pairs of T-type flip-flops where one receives from the inverter and the other receives the noise bit. Therefore, Wu does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Barak discloses combining bits generated by noise sources and reducing or eliminating their bias (Fig. 2; [0034], [0042], [0043]). Barak does not suggest the bias reducer including a set of inverters receiving noise bits nor pairs of T-type flip-flops where one receives from the inverter and the other receives the noise bit. Therefore, Barak does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Mandich discloses a random flip-flop circuit comprising inverters, T-type flip-flops and logic gates (Fig. 5; [0032], [0050]). Mandich does not suggest pairs of T-type flip-flops where one receives from the inverter, and the other receives the noise bit. Therefore, Mandich does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Chan discloses a conditioning component comprising a health test and entropy estimator to determine and reduce bias from noise sources (Fig. 3; [0051], [0068]). Chan does not suggest the conditioning component including a set of inverters receiving noise bits nor pairs of T-type flip-flops where one receives from the inverter and the other receives the noise bit. Therefore, Chan does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Emelko et al. (US 20130013657 A1, hereinafter “Emelko”) discloses combining a pseudo-random source and true random bit source with a T flip-flop (Fig. 2; [0029]-[0031]). Emelko does not suggest a pair of T flip-flops where one receives from an inverter and the other receives the noise bit. Therefore, Emelko does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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 T 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.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights