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 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 “a particle detector having two regions each of which detects particles in one of the two outputted second particle beams.”, however, the claim does not previously require any structure or functionality to spatially separate the two second particle beams. As such, it is unclear how the structure of a particle detector having two regions can have each of the two regions detecting particles in one of the two outputted second particle beams. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, the device must be capable of forming two overlapping oppositely spin-polarized particle beam to be outputted from the second magnetic field applicator. Thus, it is unclear how each region can detect particles in one of the two outputted second particle beams, as it would appear that only one region would be illuminated at any given time, and by both beams, unless the beam were directed at the adjoining line of the two regions and had sufficient beam diameter to illuminate both regions. Even in such a case, the regions would each be irradiated by both beams, and no distinction could be made for the different spin polarities. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a particle detector which detects particles in one of the two outputted second particle beams.’.
Claim 1 recites “a random number generator to generate a random number using numbers of the detected particles”. It is unclear what is required by ‘using numbers of the detected particles’, because it is not clear what numbers are intended to be required to be used. One could reasonably interpret this as ‘using a detected number of the detected particles’, ‘using respective numbers of respective particles of the detected particles’ (i.e., for potentially different particles), or as though the detected particles are intended to be labeled using said ‘numbers’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Based on Examiner’s reading of Applicant’s specification, it appears the ‘random number’, is limited to values of either ‘0’ or ‘1’, and is ‘random’ in that, which value of ‘0’ or ‘1’ is chosen randomly. Furthermore, it appears that the specification indicates that the random number generator generates such a ‘random number’ by measuring each particle detected according to the measurement position on the detector, comparing the cumulative reading of each of ‘0’ and ‘1’ over a certain time period, and outputting which is larger as the random number. However, as discussed above, the claim includes no structure or functionality for physically separating such beams is required, and thus, it is unclear how different positions on the detector could be determined. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a random number generator to generate a random number using the detected particles’.
Claim 1 recites ‘a magnetic field direction controller to control either the first (second) magnetic field application direction by the first (second) magnetic field applicator…on a basis of probabilities of occurrence of the generated random number’. It is unclear what is required by this limitation, because ‘on a basis of probabilities of occurrence of the generated random number’ is unclear. It is unclear what probabilities are referred to here as the claim does not previously require any structure taking in or determining any sort of probability, let alone probabilities specifically associated with the generated random number. In other words, the link between the probabilities of occurrence of the generated random number and how the random number is generated is missing in the claim, and thus it is unclear how the magnetic field direction controller is required to be able to function, as claimed. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Examiner notes that because the claim is directed toward a device, the clarity issue lies in the capabilities necessary for the structure to have. It appears based on Examiner’s reading of Applicant’s disclosure (in particular see [0019]) that this is intended to be directed toward setting the rotational angle between the two magnetic field applicators, which naturally results in an angle dependent spin-separation for the particles arriving at the detector according to a natural probability (i.e., angle is set, beam is spatially spin-separated twice, with the relative quantities of particles in two measured beams naturally occurring). It appears that this limitation is intending to require the functionality that the probability of ‘0’ or ‘1’ occurring be controllable (i.e., controlling the relative abundances of particles in the two detection regions), however, functionally, this amounts to a mere rotation of the field applicators relative to one another. No other manipulation is done to achieve the separation of the particles, it is the relative angles of the separating fields that causes the relative quantities at the two detection regions, and thus controls the relative probabilities of ‘0’ and ‘1’ readings. Examiner notes, however, that it is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a magnetic field direction controller to control either the first magnetic field application direction by the first magnetic field applicator or the second magnetic field application direction by the second magnetic field applicator’.
Claim 2 recites a method step, however, the claim is directed toward a device. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. It is unclear how such method steps can limit an instrument itself, other than by limiting physical capabilities/functionality thereof. Limitations directed toward the random number, for instance, are not limitations on the device itself, and thus only limit the capabilities/functionality of the device, namely, that the random number generator be capable of generating a random 1 bit binary number of ‘0’ or ‘1’. Similarly, the limitation toward the magnetic field direction controller describes an outcome of controlling the device, not any structure or functional limitation of the structure. Accordingly, the limitation requires only that the magnetic field direction controller be capable of changing either the first magnetic field application direction or the second magnetic field application direction by their respective magnetic field applicator. This capability is all that is required to achieve the claimed functional outcome. However, the method steps recited do not further limit the instrument itself, but rather its use. Accordingly, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation “wherein the magnetic field direction controller controls probability distributions of '0' or '1' in a random number sequence of random numbers to be generated by changing either the first magnetic field application direction by the first magnetic field applicator or the second magnetic field application direction by the second magnetic field applicator” is interpreted as requiring only the physical elements of the instrument, any required relative positioning to achieve the claimed method steps, and any required physical capabilities of the elements necessary to achieve the method steps claimed. In particular, under the BRI, this claim thus requires only that the random number generator be capable of generating a random number that “is a random 1 bit binary number of '0' or '1'”, since the structure and functionality required to control the magnetic field direction was required by claim 1, which is the structure that controls the probability distributions, as elucidated by claim 2. Examiner suggests using language to ensure the limitations are directed toward structures and their capabilities that result in a structural or operational difference.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (JPO Doc. No. JP 2003036168 A), in view of Shimizu (USPN US 6054708 A).
Examiner notes that Abe is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 09/18/2024.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Abe teaches a quantum random number generation device ([0001]-[0012]) comprising:
a particle generator to generate particle beams of neutral particles (See Fig. 1, items 13, 10; [0004]-[0016]);
(See Fig. 1, items 13, 10, 12; Examiner notes that the light source to produce photons is not particularly limited, and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand a photon source to typically include a laser beam, which would be understood to have some sort of exit aperture, which could be reasonably interpreted as a slit body);
a first [polarization] applicator to convert the rectified particle beam into two first particle beams that are spin-polarized in directions parallel and anti-parallel to a first [polarization] application direction, and output the converted two first particle beams (See Figs. 1 and 7, items 91, 14; [0002]; [0013]);
a second [polarization] applicator to convert one of the two outputted first particle beams into two second particle beams that are spin-polarized in directions parallel and anti-parallel to a second [polarization] application direction, and output the converted two second particle beams (See Figs. 1 and 7, items 92, 16; [0002]; [0013]-[0014]);
a particle detector having two regions each of which detects particles in one of the two outputted second particle beams (See above 112(b) interpretation; See Figs. 1 and 7, items 94, 95; 19, 20; [0002]; [0013]-[0014]);
a random number generator to generate a random number using numbers of the detected particles (See above 112(b) interpretation; See Figs. 1 and 7, items 96, 21; [0013]-[0015]); and
a [polarization] direction controller to control either the first [polarization] application direction by the first [polarization] applicator or the second [polarization] application direction by the second [polarization] applicator on a basis of probabilities of occurrence of the generated random number (See above 112(b) interpretation; See Figs. 1 and 7, items 92, 16; [0002]; [0013]-[0014]).
Abe does not explicitly teach a slit and the polarization applicators being magnetic field-based polarization applicators.
First, Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would likely have an advanced degree in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and would thus have a relatively high level of ordinary skill and knowledge. The analyses throughout the action are done in view of such an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Abe does not particularly limit the type of polarizers used therein, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the polarizers to be typical elements, such as various forms of prisms (e.g., a birefringent prism, Wollaston prisms, one or more polarizing transmissive/diffractive material elements), polarizing beam splitters (PBS), magnetic field applicators (e.g., one or more permanent magnets or electromagnets), etc. Because of the relatively high level of ordinary skill, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of alternative embodiments of polarizers, such as the above, and could readily apply such a particular embodiment of a polarizer to the arrangement of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success, using only their ordinary skill and knowledge. Certainly, such an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily apply a slit element to a neutral particle source to form a beam therefrom. Furthermore, given the disclosure of Abe, it would appear that the photons are collimated in some way in order to be individually distinguishable as required, as would be understood by such an ordinarily skilled artisan. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Abe to implicitly disclose some form of slit body (or functional equivalent, such as an aperture, collimating opening, etc.).
Examiner further notes, in particular, that such an ordinarily skilled artisan would readily recognize a sufficiently strong magnetic field as polarizing the beam disclosed in Abe.
Nevertheless, Shimizu teaches a slit body (See Fig. 4A, item 25; Col 6, line 64 – Col. 7, line 38) and a neutral particle beam control technique, wherein the neutral particles of the beam are controllably polarized (and spatially controlled) by an (inhomogeneous) applied magnetic field (Col. 2, line 54 – Col. 5, line 67; See also Figs. 3-4, 7, 9A, 11 and associated description). Examiner notes that directional control of the applied fields is disclosed in the cited portions.
Accordingly, Shimizu teaches a slit body to rectify the generated particle beams to a particle beam in a single direction and a magnetic field applicator to convert the neutral particle beam into two neutral particle beams that are spin-polarized in directions parallel and anti-parallel to its magnetic field application direction, and a magnetic field direction controller to control the magnetic field application direction by the first magnetic field applicator.
Thus, because Abe teaches a first [polarization] applicator to convert the rectified particle beam into two first particle beams that are spin-polarized in directions parallel and anti-parallel to a first [polarization] application direction, and output the converted two first particle beams; a second [polarization] applicator to convert one of the two outputted first particle beams into two second particle beams that are spin-polarized in directions parallel and anti-parallel to a second [polarization] application direction, and output the converted two second particle beams;…; a [polarization] direction controller to control either the first [polarization] application direction by the first [polarization] applicator or the second [polarization] application direction by the second [polarization] applicator on a basis of probabilities of occurrence of the generated random number, and in particular teaches not-particularly limited (i.e., in structure) polarizers and polarization direction controller, and because Shimizu teaches an alternative polarizer including a polarization direction controller via control of the applied magnetic field, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abe to include such an alternative polarizing structure, such as that of Shimizu using magnetic fields for polarization.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Abe teaches a device with similar functionality, without particular limitation toward the required structures, Shimizu teaches an alternative embodiments of such required polarizing structures, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily adapt such an alternative structure to the system of Abe with a reasonable expectation of success, and achieving predictable results, namely, further control over the polarization of the beam, as disclosed by the techniques of Shimizu.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Abe in view of Shimizu teaches the quantum random number generation device according to claim 1.
Abe further teaches wherein the random number is a random 1 bit binary number of '0' or '1' (See above 112(b) interpretation; See Fig. 2; [0013]-[0014], wherein single bit binary number of 0 and 1 are disclosed as being applied according to a predetermined rule), and wherein the magnetic field direction controller controls probability distributions of '0' or '1' in a random number sequence of random numbers to be generated by changing either the first magnetic field application direction by the first magnetic field applicator or the second magnetic field application direction by the second magnetic field applicator (See above 112(b) interpretation; See Figs. 1 and 7, items 92, 16; [0002]; [0013]-[0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cho (US 20070076837 A1);
Schmidt (US 20100002824 A1);
Shimizu’554 (US 20100032554 A1);
Dent (US 20110260043 A1);
Mofakhami (US 20130148770 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights