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 .
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 1-2, 4, 7-16, and 18-20 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.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 contain the following limitation: “the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies or polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time”. As written, it is clear that the multiple modalities are the frequencies or polarization angles, but it is unclear if the random number generator (RNG) is used to activate and control whichever modality is selected or if only polarization angles are controlled with the RNG if polarization angles are selected. The utilization of “each” seems to indicate that whichever set of modalities is selected will be activated and controlled, but the detail that the RNG “controls which angles are active” provides confusion as the frequencies are frequencies, not angles. Paragraph 0084 of the specification appears to provide details about controlling either frequencies or polarization angles with the RNG, but previous paragraph 0083 contains the same confusing wording as detailed in the claim, so it is unclear even in consideration of the specification what the metes and bounds for the RNG based control are meant to be. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the RNG will be interpreted as activating and controlling either frequencies or polarization angles wherein the phrase “controls which angles are active” is only applicable to if polarization angles are selected.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7-14, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 15, or 18 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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) 1 and 4, 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. EP 1400816 A2 (hereinafter Matsubara) in view of Tsai et al. US 12054164 B2 (hereinafter Tsai), Davis US 12276734 B1 (hereinafter Davis), and Bruneau et al. US 20210367755 A1 (hereinafter Bruneau).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Matsubara teaches a vehicle (Figure 11 depicts the invention being used in a vehicle) comprising:
a sensor system including a transmitter configured to emit multiple modalities of an electromagnetic sensor signal over a period of time during which the vehicle is in operation (paragraph 0007 discloses a radar which emits waves at shifting frequencies during vehicle operation; radar emission requires a transmitter) and a receiver configured to sense the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal over the period of time (paragraph 0007 discloses receiving reflected radio waves; radar reception requires a receiver); and
one or more processing circuits connected to the sensor system (paragraph 0007 discloses a signal processing unit; since it receives data from the sensor it is connected) and configured to:
receive, from the sensor system, the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time (Abstract discloses detecting objects with radar which implies sensing the returning signal), the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal);
generate, from the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time, an intermediate output for each of the modalities for a plurality of sub-intervals of the period (paragraph 0007 discloses processing sensor data to obtain position information of a vehicle ahead);
for each of the plurality of sub-intervals, compare the intermediate outputs of different ones of the multiple modalities (paragraph 0007 discloses comparing the position information to determine if there is jamming) including performing a majority voting between the different ones of the multiple modalities for each of the plurality of sub-intervals (Abstract discloses comparisons are done with majority voting); and
for each of the modalities, compare the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals (paragraph 0012 discloses comparing the waveforms of the received signals and determining if there is jamming) including performing a majority voting between the modalities of the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals (Abstract discloses comparisons are done with majority voting).
Matsubara doesn’t teach an autonomous vehicle, comprising: an electro-mechanical control system configured to receive control inputs and control operation of the autonomous vehicle in response thereto; the processing circuit further connected to the electro-mechanical control system is further configured to: based on a combination of the majority voting between the different ones of the multiple modalities for each of the plurality of sub-intervals and the majority voting between the each of modalities of the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals, generate and provide the control inputs to the electro-mechanical control system.
Tsai teaches an autonomous vehicle (column 3 lines 5-7 recite that fault detection occurs on an autonomous vehicle), comprising:
an electro-mechanical control system configured to receive control inputs and control operation of the autonomous vehicle in response thereto (Figure 4C discloses various electro-mechanical control systems, such as a propulsion system 450; column 8 lines 4-27 disclose a controller controlling the vehicle);
the processing circuit further connected to the electro-mechanical control system (Figure 4C 418 shows a CPU connected to the propulsion system 450 and steering system 454) is further configured to:
based on a detected fault, generate and provide the control inputs to the electro-mechanical control system (column 44 lines 50-57 disclose controlling the vehicle in response to a detected hardware fault).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Tsai such that, upon detection of a fault by the teachings of Matsubara, the vehicle can be appropriately controlled by the teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of vehicle operation.
Matsubara does not teach the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time.
Davis teaches the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles (column 2 line 39 to column 3 line 9 discloses polarization of LIDAR pulses) each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time (column 2 line 39 to column 3 line 9 discloses a deterministic random bit generator (DRBG) generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulse's polarization and/or frequency; claim 1 discloses that the DRBG is comprised within the vehicle, i.e. local).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be controlled by a DRBG that provides a pseudorandom key sequence which is encoded within the sensor’s polarization angles and/or frequencies as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Matsubara does not teach that the random number generator is offline.
Bruneau teaches that the random number generator is offline (paragraph 0083 discloses cryptographic keys can be generated online or offline by a random number generator).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Bruneau such that DRBG of Davis can be utilized offline as taught by Bruneau. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow greater flexibility of number generation and reduce reliance on an internet connection to perform the method.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the comparing of the intermediate outputs of different ones of the multiple modalities for each of the plurality of sub-intervals and comparing of each of modalities of the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals are performed in a single processor of the one or more processing circuits (paragraph 0007 discloses a signal processing unit which appears to be a solitary unit).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different encodings of the electromagnetic sensor signal.
Davis further teaches that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different encodings of the electromagnetic sensor signal (column 2 line 39 to column 3 line 9 discloses DRBG generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulses; repetition of the encoding generation process in Figure 5 indicates a plurality of random encodings are generated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be provided with randomized encodings as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the electromagnetic sensor signal is a lidar signal.
Tsai further teaches that the electromagnetic sensor signal is a lidar signal (Figure 4A 464 discloses lidar).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Tsai. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the lidar of Tsai for the radar of the Matsubara. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of producing signals which map out the environment by emitting and receiving back a signal renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the electromagnetic sensor signal is a radar signal (Abstract discloses radar).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the sensor system includes a visual spectrum camera system.
Tsai further teaches that the sensor system includes a visual spectrum camera system (Figure 4A 468, 470, and 474 disclose various camera systems).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety and reliability of self-driving.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the sensor system is configured to emit multiple modalities (paragraph 0007 discloses a radar which emits waves at shifting frequencies).
Matsubara does not teach a sonar signal.
Tsai further teaches a sonar signal (Figure 4A 462 discloses ultrasonic sensors).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the ultrasonic sensors of Tsai for the radar of the Matsubara. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of producing signals which map out the environment by emitting and receiving back a signal renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 11 as disclosed above. Tsai teaches a sonar signal (Figure 4A 462 discloses ultrasonic sensors) as disclosed and combined to teach claim 11 above. Matsubara further teaches that the multiple modalities include different frequencies (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the electro-mechanical control system includes a steering control system for the autonomous vehicle.
Tsai further teaches that the electro-mechanical control system includes a steering control system for the autonomous vehicle (Figure 4C 454 discloses a steering system for autonomous vehicle control).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve reliability of the autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the electro-mechanical control system includes a speed control system for the autonomous vehicle.
Tsai further teaches that the electro-mechanical control system includes a speed control system for the autonomous vehicle (Figure 4C 450 discloses a propulsion system including throttler/accelerator 452 which would inherently control speed within the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve reliability of the autonomous driving.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Tsai, Davis, Bruneau, and Liu et al. CN 109061577 A (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 18, Matsubara teaches one or more processing circuits (paragraph 0007 discloses a signal processing unit) configured to:
receive, from a sensor system having a receiver, multiple modalities of each of a plurality of sensor signals as sensed over a period of time (Abstract discloses detecting objects with radar which implies sensing the returning signal; a receiver is required to receive radar signals), the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal);
perform, for each of the corresponding multiple modalities of the corresponding sensor signals as sensed over the period of time, majority voting between the multiple modalities for each of a plurality of sub-intervals of the period (paragraph 0012 discloses comparing the waveforms of the received signals and determining if there is jamming; Abstract discloses comparisons are done with majority voting).
Matsubara does not teach a control system for autonomously operable equipment, comprising: one or more processing circuits further configured to: perform, for each of the corresponding multiple modalities of the corresponding sensor signals as sensed over the period of time, majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between different times of the period; and based on a combination of the majority voting between the multiple modalities for each of the sub-intervals and the majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between different times of the period for each of the corresponding sensor signal voting, generate and provide control inputs for an electro-mechanical control system for the autonomously operable equipment.
Liu teaches performing, for each of the corresponding multiple modalities the corresponding sensor signals as sensed over the period of time, majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between different times of the period (translated page 2 last paragraph discloses a known method of extracting statistical parameters based on frequency of occurrence from a histogram of a signal's amplitude and phase which examiner considers additional modalities; examiner considers an analysis of a histogram in this manner to have an equivalent function to majority voting with historical data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to improve filtering of noise and interference modalities when the signal to noise/interference ratio is high.
The modified Matsubara reference still does not teach a control system for autonomously operable equipment, comprising: one or more processing circuits further configured to: based on a combination of the majority voting between the multiple modalities for each of the sub-intervals and the majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between differ times of the period for each of the corresponding sensor signal voting, generate and provide control inputs for an electro-mechanical control system for the autonomously operable equipment.
Tsai teaches a control system for autonomously operable equipment (column 3 lines 5-7 recites a fault detection system on an autonomous vehicle; column 8 lines 4-27 disclose a controller controlling the vehicle), comprising: one or more processing circuits further (Figure 4C 418 shows a CPU) configured to:
based on a detected fault, generate and provide control inputs for an electro-mechanical control system for the autonomously operable equipment (column 44 lines 50-57 disclose controlling the vehicle in response to a detected hardware fault).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Tsai such that, upon detection of a fault by the teachings of Matsubara, the vehicle can be appropriately controlled with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of vehicle operation.
Matsubara does not teach the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time.
Davis teaches the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles (column 2 line 39 to column 3 line 9 discloses polarization of LIDAR pulses) each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time (column 2 line 39 to column 3 line 9 discloses DRBG generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulse's polarization and/or frequency; claim 1 discloses that the DRBG is comprised within the vehicle, i.e. local).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be controlled by a DRBG that provides a pseudorandom key sequence which is encoded within the sensor’s polarization angles and/or frequencies as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Matsubara does not teach that the random number generator is offline.
Bruneau teaches that the random number generator is offline (paragraph 0083 discloses cryptographic keys can be generated online or offline by a random number generator).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Bruneau such that DRBG of Davis can be utilized offline as taught by Bruneau. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow greater flexibility of number generation and reduce reliance on an internet connection to perform the method.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 18 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the sensor system is configured to emit the multiple modalities of the sensor signals over the period of time during which the autonomously operable equipment is in operation (paragraph 0007 discloses a radar which emits waves at shifting frequencies; it is implied that object detection with radar would occur during vehicle operation) and to sense the multiple modalities the sensor signals over the period of time (paragraph 0007 discloses receiving reflected radio waves).
Claim(s) 2, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara as modified by Tsai, Davis, and Bruneau as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and Matsubara as modified by Tsai, Davis, Bruneau, and Liu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "The Radar Equation" by Radartutorial (hereinafter Radartutorial).
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 20; the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claims 1, 15, and 20 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not explicitly teach determining the emitted modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal based on the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time.
Radartutorial teaches determining the emitted modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal based on the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time (equation 3 shows an equation regarding reflected power, transmitted power, range, radar cross section, and gain; it is rudimentary math to reorder the equation to determine the transmitted power, provided all other variables are known, based on the reflected power; examiner considers radar signal power applicable to a modality).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Radartutorial with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately determine emitted power.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 5/11/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 12/4/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, applicant argues that the claimed limitation “a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active” is not indefinite since “a person of ordinary skill would reasonably read the clause in the alternative: when frequencies are the selected modality, the RNG controls which frequencies are active; when polarization is selected, it controls which angles are active, and the word ‘angles’ is an appropriate shorthand in the polarization branch, not the global limitation.” Applicant further cites sections of the specification that use polarization angles and frequencies as plug-and-play elements to support this interpretation. The applicant’s interpretation is flawed as 1) the applicant’s cited paragraphs are not related to the RNG, and 2) “angles” must be interpreted in a manner not coincident with it’s well understood meaning.
Regarding the cited paragraphs (1), the applicant cites sections which do not provide any details regarding operation of the RNG regarding angle and frequency modalities. Mere allegations that one element can be swapped for another using these paragraphs does not sufficiently provide interpretation for the term “angles” meaning “angles or frequencies” as the applicant suggests. Applicant is respectfully reminded that the examiner does interpret the claim limitation in view of the specification and came to an indefinite interpretation in light of paragraphs 0083-0084 (see 112(b) rejection above). Applicant’s interpretation does not appear reasonable in light of these paragraphs.
For the sake of argument, even if “angles” is interpreted as shorthand for “angles or frequencies” as the applicant suggests, such an interpretation without proper lexicographical definition of the term “angles” to mean more than it’s well understood meaning would still be indefinite (2). While applicant argues that “angles” is mere exemplary of one option and thus would be understood as easily swapped for frequencies and thus “angles” should not be understood as a global limitation, this is inconsistent with how claims are conventionally read. Exemplary limitations are indefinite under 112(b) regardless (see 2173.05(d)), so interpreting the limitation regarding “angles” as merely exemplary of one option would be improper. The only proper interpretation to achieve the effect applicant desires would be to interpret “angles” as meaning “angles or frequencies”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “angles” in claims 1, 15, and 18 would be used by the claims to mean “angles or frequencies,” while the accepted meaning is “angles.” The term would thus be indefinite in light of this interpretation because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With motivation to not replace one indefiniteness rejection for another, the 112(b) rejection of 12/4/2026 is maintained. To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends amending “angles” to read “angles or frequencies”. Such an amendment would be minor and is supported within the disclosure at the time of filing in at least paragraph 0084.
On pages 9-10, applicant argues that “no aspect of Matsubara, Tsai or Davis recognizes, discloses or suggests provision of a random number generator of any kind --– on line or offline – for ANY purpose, let alone ensuring security is maintained in connection with processing data associated with autonomous vehicle control” (applicant’s emphasis). Examiner respectfully asserts that the applicant’s argument is factually incorrect. Davis factually discloses the following:
“Specifically, the exemplary LIDAR can employ a cryptographically secure deterministic random bit generator (DRBG) to generate a secure pseudorandom key sequence that can be encoded in the emitted light pulses. For example, the secure pseudorandom key sequence can be encoded in the polarization and/or the frequency of the emitted light pulses” (column 2 lines 39-45).
“A vehicle, comprising:
“a LIDAR system including:
“a cryptographically secure deterministic random bit generator (DRBG) configured to generate a first cryptographically secure pseudorandom key sequence” (claim 1).
As shown above, Davis teaches a DRBG, which is well-known as a type of RNG, installed on a vehicle (i.e. local). Further, Davis factually and explicitly discloses the purpose of the utilization of the DRBG:
“Accordingly, secure encryption can mitigate certain vulnerabilities to which conventional LIDAR systems may be susceptible, such as interference from other source and intentional malicious spoofing attempts” (column 2 lines 21-25).
As teachings are based on what is factually cited within the prior art of record, Davis clearly teaches the limitation “each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time”.
Examiner does agree that Matsubara, Tsai, and Davis in combination fail to teach that the RNG is offline. Bruneau fixes this discrepancy, detailing the following:
“In embodiments in which encryption uses one or more secret cryptographic keys, the secret cryptographic keys may be previously stored in the cryptographic computing device 11 (in a centralized or distributed way) or may be generated (online or offline) by a random number generator and/or by a Physically Unclonable Function (PUF)” (paragraph 0083).
Applicant argues that “Nothing in Matsubara, Tsai or Davis leads one to even think of adding… a random number generator that is local offline.” As Davis has already been factually shown to teach a local DRBG, it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search for references to cryptographically improve security of generated data. Bruneau is analogous to the claimed invention since it is pertinent to solving the problem of improving data security. Since Bruneau is analogous art, combination would be obvious with sufficient motivation. There is a plurality of motivations that may be utilized. For one example, as cited in the Office Action dated 12/4/26, modification with Bruneau would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow greater flexibility of number generation and reduce reliance on an internet connection to perform the method. If applicant is not satisfied with this motivation, KSR rationale E may also be utilized since there are only two options for the RNG to be regarding connectivity: online or offline. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try the teachings of Bruneau since there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. online RNG or offline RNG) to the recognized need (random number generation for security purposes) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus be sufficiently motivated, in spite of applicant’s arguments detailing otherwise, to perform combination with Bruneau to make the DRBG of Davis offline.
In light of the above, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights