quantumtrader wrote: There are two main issues with our application. Misinterpretation of diagrams, and misinterpetation of our method itself. Before reading this, I recommend you do some basic research on transistors (i.e. n-p-n/source-gate-drain structure), FETs, and quantum tunneling (even though this research should have been done before buying in!). Furthemore, familiarize yourself with QNC's claims and diagrams (specifically figure 9 of D1).
The first issue QNC tackles is the EPO's misinterpretation of their diagrams. Essentially, the EPO perceived that "the two conductors in claim 1 correpsond to the source and the drain of a Field Effect Transistor (FET), and the "insulator" in claim 1 corresponds to the "doped semiconductor" of this FET. From here, the EPO centered their arguments around this perception which, if it was true, would vindicate the EPO's denial. This is not the case, however, as QNC points out we use a FET coupled to a high resistance resistor. From this, we can move into the second issue.
The EPO believed that we utilize the phenomena of quantum tunneling to generate a random bit sample (this method is already claimed by some Princeton "researchers"). I say researchers because their patent's accompanying product is extremely odd to say the least. That's another story. Back to the FET-Resistor pairing, QNC restates that the random molecular collisions in the resistive material alter the voltage of the FET, so it is NOT quantum tunneling which sets the output voltage. To back up this claim, they point out that the "noise generated from quantum tunneling" is 2000 times smaller than the thermal noise of the drain source channel; since thermal noise does not have the random characteristics of quantum tunneling, the output voltage cannot be dictated by quantum tunneling. D1 does not describe how to obtain this quantum noise nor separate its signal from the thermal noise so that the quantum noise remains (another proof). This "defect" also persists if the device is accompanied with a MOSFET (essentially a device used to switch/amplify the signals); this also proves that the voltage is dictated by said random collisions since we are still unable to separate these signals. By not being able to do this, our samples cannot be generated by quantum tunneling even though it is obviously apart of the process.
To conclude, QNC rounds off their response by saying the "skilled man" is unable to generate a quantum based random signal from the disclosure of D1, and that nobody can "practice the technical teaching of D1 such that D1 is not comprised in the state of the art in a manner relevent for claim 1". What this means is that a) from the info/claims we've provided, no expert can make random bit samples whose randomness is based off of quantum noise, and b) (this is one is harder to interpret but is nonetheless very important) if someone were to look at D1 such that it is isolated and not in the context of claim 1, they would be unable to teach it BECAUSE "as presented in our previous submission, claim 1 thus is novel and is based on an inventive step". One cannot understand nor pass judgement on the originality of the device (that means the EPO) from the workings of D1 without its relevance to claim 1. Read that line a few times, it'll take a minute to see what I'm getting at. QNC then basically says grant us the patent, it's ready.
Overall, QNC threw some major shade at the EPO. This rebuttal is a "you're stupid card" in engineer's clothing. Also, one cannot dismiss Bertrand's 5-page submission - this is the nail in the coffin. He essentially says "Hi, this is who I am, I'm French, I've done lots of work for France". He then takes QNC's rebuttal and goes into great depths of detail (I gave you guys an extremely basic rundown with regards to the physics, as I didn't want to lose anyone). He gives the rebuttal a well-rounded scientifc backing, and I highly recommend any quantum mechanics junkies here to take a look at it (he covers topics from Johnson noise to Van der Ziel's work on noise in FET's). Additionally, they refer the EPO to Van der Ziel's works to really hammer this thing home while basically telling the EPO they didn't do their research. Engineer burns all around. Let's hope the EPO isn't going to be a sore loser about this.
P.S I titled this as a "summary" because there is much more to say, but this is basically what should be taken away from the response.