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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed on 04/20/2026. The applicant amended claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 20, and 21 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 22-23 have been added.
With respect to claim objections:
Applicant’ claim amendments and remarks filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered and overcame the claim objections as presented in the non-final office action filed 01/21/2026. Therefore, objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections:
Applicant’ claim amendments and remarks filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered and overcame the 112(b) rejection as presented in the non-final office action filed 01/21/2026. Therefore, rejection have been withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections:
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/20/2026 have been received and entered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the newly amended independent claims, see Applicant Arguments 12-17, with respect to the rejection (s) of independent claims 1,12 and 20 have been fully considered and overcame the claim rejections as presented in the non- final office action filed 01/21/2026. Therefore, Rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “the processer device to “ should read “the processor device configured to”. Appropriate correction is needed.
Regarding claim 21, Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 is depends from subsequent claim 23 rather that the previously set fort claims. Claim 21 should be rewritten to depend from the proper preceding claim or should be renumbered. Appropriate correction is needed.
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 7, 18, 20, 21, and 23 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 7 recites that “generating the QM encoding of the update for the content comprises registering the first set of qubits”. The phrase “registering the first set of qubits” is unclear because the claim does not define what operation is being performed on the first set of qubits. It is unclear whether “registering “ means allocating the first set of qubits for use, recording metadata for the first set of qubits in a qubits registry. The claim does not clearly identify the act required by “registering”, the scope of claim 7 is unclear. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claim. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites that “the content is stored on the second CD, and the second CD is enabled to update the content by employing a patching protocol that receives, as input, the classical encoding of the update”. However, claim 18 further recites that “the content includes at least one of an executable application installed on the first CD or an operating system (OS) installed on the first CD”. This creates an internal inconsistency. The claim first identifies the second CD as the device on which the content is stored and updated, but then identifies the first CD as the device on which the executable application or operating system is installed. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed content is store/installed on the first CD, the second CD or both. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claim. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20, the role and location of the claimed “first quantum computing device” are unclear. Claim 20 recites that the claimed first quantum computing device receives a QM encoding from a second QD over first QCC, and further recites that the secured side system externally communicates only through an open side system via the first QCC. However, the claim does not clearly recite whether the claimed first quantum computing device is part of the open side system, part of client device or separate device. Because the claimed first quantum computing device is the device that receives, decodes, and transmits the classical encoding to the second CD, but the relationship to the openside and client-side system is not clearly defined, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are unclear. Examiner suggest applicant to clarify the scope of the claim. Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above for independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “the method of claim 23”, but claim 23 appears after claim 21. Because claim 21 depends from a subsequent claim, the antecedent basis provided by claim 23 is not properly available to claim 21. As a result, the recitation of “the third QD” in claim 21 lacks proper antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of claim 21 is unclear.
Claim 23, recites that “the second QD is coupled to a third QD of the client device via a second QCC” and further recites that “the third QD is communicatively coupled to the client device via the classical communication network”. The language is unclear because the claim first characterizes the third QD as being “of the client device”, but then separately recites that the third QD is communicatively coupled to the “the client device”. It is unclear whether the third QD is part of the client device, separate from the client device, Claim 23 further recites that “the first QD is isolated from the classical communication network and the client device such that a communicative coupling between the first QD and the client device is enabled only by the second QD” and further recites that “the communicative coupling between the first QD and the client device requires at least one of the first QCC and the second QCC”. This language is unclear because the claim’s recited topology appears to require communication from the first QD to the second QD via the first QCC, and communication from the second QD to the third QD via second QCC. However, the claim then states that communication between the first QD and the client device requires “at least one of the first QCC and the second QCC”. It is therefore unclear whether the communication path requires the first QCC only , the second QCC only, or both the first QCC and the second QCC. Additionally, the phrase “enabled only by the second QD” is unclear because the same limitation also recites a third QD, a first QCC, a second QCC, and classical communication network as a part of communication arrangement. It is therefore how the second QD alone enables the communicative coupling between the first QD and the client device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-14, 16, and 19, and 22 are allowed.
Claims 20 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7, 18, 20, 21 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art:-
Griffin (US 20200366316 A1) describes a quantum data transfer technique in which a conventionally compressed file is further encoded using superdense coding. A first quantum communication device encodes the file onto qubits entangled with qubits held by a second device and sends those qubits to the second device. The receiving device may generate and store a sequential mapping that preserves the order in which the qubits represent the compressed file, enabling the data to be properly reconstructed.
Ikram (US 20240265096 A1) describes an event-based application control system that uses an endpoint security API to monitor operating system kernel events. A system extension registers for selected event types, receives notifications when those events occur, and determines whether the associated event and process are safe to execute using whitelists, blacklists, and security rules. It then sends an allow or block decision back to the operating system through the endpoint security API.
Smith (US 20170134100 A1) describes a quantum communication technique that transfers classical data using selective entanglement swapping. A sending device selectively entangles its qubits pairs, causing corresponding qubits at a receiving device to become entangled. The receiver analyzes whether multiple qubits pairs exhibit a corelated or uncorrelated probability distribution and converts that distribution into a classical bit. This allows classical information to be transmitted efficiently using relatively few qubits.
Regarding claim 1: However, each of the cited references or references from the updated searches, either alone or in combination, at least, fails to teach or suggest the limitations regarding “receiving, by the first QD, a classical encoding of the update for the content from the first CD, wherein the classical encoding is stored as a first set of bits that has a first cardinality; in response to receiving the classical encoding of the update for the content from the first CD, generating, by the first QD, a quantum-mechanical (QM) encoding of the update for the content based on a superdense coding protocol and the classical encoding, wherein quantum states of a first set of qubits store the QM encoding of the update for the content, the first set of qubits having a second cardinality that is less than the first cardinality; causing, by the first QD, a transmission of the QM encoding of the update for the content to a second QD of the content distribution system over the first QCC, in response to receiving the QM encoding of the update for the content from the first QD, decoding, by the second QD, the QM encoding of the update for the content to obtain the classical encoding of the update for the content at the second QD; causing, by the second QD, a transmission of the classical encoding of the update for the content to a second CD of the open-side system of the content distribution system, wherein the open-side system comprising the second CD is communicatively coupled to a client device over a classical communication network” in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in the independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: However, each of the cited references or references from the updated searches, either alone or in combination, at least, fails to teach or suggest the limitations regarding “receiving, by the first QD, a classical encoding of the update for the content from the first CD, wherein the classical encoding is stored as a first set of bits that has a first cardinality; in response to receiving the classical encoding of the update for the content from the first CD, generating, by the first QD, a quantum-mechanical (QM) encoding of the update for the content based on a superdense coding protocol and the classical encoding, wherein quantum states of a first set of qubits store the QM encoding of the update for the content, the first set of qubits having a second cardinality that is less than the first cardinality; causing, by the first QD, a transmission of the QM encoding of the update for the content to a second QD of the content distribution system over the first QCC, in response to receiving the QM encoding of the update for the content from the first QD, decoding, by the second QD, the QM encoding of the update for the content to obtain the classical encoding of the update for the content at the second QD; causing, by the second QD, a transmission of the classical encoding of the update for the content to a second CD of the open-side system of the content distribution system, wherein the open-side system comprising the second CD is communicatively coupled to a client device over a classical communication network” in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in the independent claim 12.
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 SAMIKSHYA POUDEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1540. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon- Fri.
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, SHEWAYE GELAGAY can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/S.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2436
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights