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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16 have been amended have been amended
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 18 have been cancelled
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-13, and 16 are pending
Priority
This application claims domestic priority to application PCT/SG2021/050408 filed on 07/13/2021 and further claims foreign priority to application SINGAPORE 10202006706W filed on 07/14/2020. All priority documents have been received. Therefore, the effective filling date of this application is 07/14/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/16/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection for claim 7. The objection has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the USC 112(b) rejection for claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-12. The rejection has been overcome for all claims except for claims 7 and 10-12. Examiner suggests amending claim 7 as suggested to overcome the 112(b) rejection.
With respect to the USC 112(f) claim interpretation. The interpretation is being maintained.
With respect to the USC 103 rejection Applicant has argued that LI-DEROSA fail to teach of the newly amended limitation of “wherein each user system comprises an energy bounding component for limiting Trojan horse attack (THA) without estimating a photon number distribution in the optical pulses”. LI teaches of an energy bounding component as seen in the following citations. ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2194-2195] “At Alice’s (Bob’s) device, the light pulses are filtered by an optical filter for removing unwanted optical signals. Then, part of light pulses are used to estimate the acquired photon number distribution (PND) by a beam splitter (BS3) and intensity detector (ID). This is for countering against possible Trojan-horse attack … The pulses are attenuated to single-photon level by an attenuator (Att), then pass through the polarization beam splitter and go back to Charlie.”). However, LI-DEROSA does not teach “without estimating a photon number distribution in the optical pulses”. Therefore, Examiner is now relying on a new third reference LUCAMARINI to better teach this limitation. LUCAMARINI teaches ([LUCAMARINI, section IV A] “An entirely passive architecture against the THA is drawn schematically in Fig. 5. It is based on a sequence of components that actualize the security argument described so far. A silica-based optical fiber loop (OFL) of length L defines the LIDT of the transmitter and is followed by a filtering block F, an optical isolator I and an attenuator A. … The OFL acts as a regulator for high-power input light and as a filter for wavelengths longer than the bend-edge point. Together with the optical filter F, which is tuned to let pass the wavelength of the quantum channel and stop all the others, it limits the maximum number N of photons that Eve can inject into Alice’s module in the chosen time unit. In other terms, it represents the optical component to which the LIDT should apply.”) ([LUCAMARINI, section I Introduction] “In Fig. 1, the Trojan horse attack (THA) against an optical QKD setup is sketched.”). As can be seen from these citations LUCAMARINI teaches an optical filter which is analogous to the energy bounding component recited in the claims. Furthermore, LUCAMARINI’s does not limit Trojan horse attack by estimating a photon number distribution. Rather it limits the maximum number N of photons that Eve can inject into Alice’s module in the chosen time unit. Therefore, the combination of LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI now teaches all limitations of claim 1 and parallel independent claims.
Additional arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 as amended recites of the limitation “the plurality of of user systems". Examiner suggests amending this to omit the extra “of”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “the plurality of user systems”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 limitations are:
“… user system … receiving …” in claims 1
“… user system … modulating …” in claims 1
“… user system … re-transmitting …” in claims 1
“ … energy bounding component for” in claims 1 and 13
“… one or more detectors for …” in claim 4
“… a modulator modulating …” in claim 13
“a passive power limiter for limiting …” in claims 1 and 13
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
See para. [0044, 0050, 0051, 0056] for functional support for “user system … receiving …modulating … re-transmitting”
See para. [0064 and 0065] for hardware support for “user system”
See para. [0024, 0045] for functional support for “energy bounding component”
See para. [0029, 0040] for hardware support for “energy bounding component”
See para. [0040, 0052] for functional support for “passive power limiter limiting”
See para. [0040] for hardware support for “passive power limiter”
See para. [0041, 0056] for functional support for “a modulator modulating”
See para. [0032, 0041] for hardware support for “a modulator”
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-13, and 16 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. Independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 16 have been amended to recite of the limitation “wherein each user system comprises an energy bounding component for limiting Trojan horse attack (THA) without estimating a photon number distribution in the optical pulses”. However, the specification of the current application recites an energy bounding component that does estimate a photon number distribution in the optical pulses ([Specification, para. 0024] “photon energy bounding is performed with photon number distribution monitoring, for limiting the Trojan-horse attack (THA), in the plug-and-play MDI-QKD 100 according to one example embodiment. … It is noted that after transmitting through the optical attenuator (ATT) 126, 128, the encoded quantum state will be characterised by a photon distribution monitoring apparatus 130, 132 for energy bounding.”) ([Specification, para. 0044] “wherein each user system comprises an energy bounding component for limiting Trojan horse attack (THA).”) ([Specification, para. 0045] “The energy bounding component may comprise a photon number distribution monitoring system, and the plurality of user systems may be configured to communicate with each other for discarding measurement results when the photon number distribution monitoring system determines a non-fulfilment of a bound energy requirement.”) ([Specification, para. 0031] “Thus, with the measurement results and linear programming (detector decoy method), one can obtain the measurement results given by specific photon number states, which gives the photon number distribution of the quantum state ρ. In this way, the photon energy of the output signal can be bounded, which in turn limits the THA. “). As can be seen from these citations, the specification outlines using a photon number distribution to perform energy bounding to limit a Trojan horse attack. The specification does not provide support for not implementing photon number distribution by the energy component.
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.
Claims 7 and 10-12 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 the limitation “at each of the user system” and “input into the user system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites a plurality of user systems. However, the claim does not provide antecedent basis for a single user system. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting these limitations as “at each of the user systems” and “input into the user systems”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 depend on claim 7. Therefore, they also inherit the rejection.
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, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (“Reference-frame-independent and measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution using one single source”) in view of DEROSA (“Fiber-optic power limiter based on photothermal defocusing in an optical polymer”), and further in view of LUCAMARINI (“Practical security bounds against the Trojan-horse attack in quantum key distribution”), hereinafter LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI.
Regarding claim 1, LI teaches “A measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network comprising: ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2195] “Here, we discuss the security of the proposed protocol. Firstly, the security of MDI-QKD protocol is equivalent to that of time-reversal EPR protocol [48–50]. While, the security of EPR protocol is based on quantum entanglement protocol. So, the MDI-QKD protocol is secure. … . In this protocol, efficient intensity monitor at Alice (Bob) can help to counter against the attacks derived from untrusted source. Alice and Bob can verify the outputs of Charlie”) a common server with a laser source for optical pulse generation and distribution; ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2194-2195] “The proposed RFI MDI-QKD system uses only one source, as shown in Fig. 1. There is one laser at Charlie who also has a Bell state measurement (BSM) device. … Light generation. The light pulse from the laser at Charlie is split into two pulses by a beam splitter (BS2). One is sent to Alice through a polarization beam splitter while the other is sent to Bob through another PBS”) a plurality of user systems, each user system: receiving optical pulses from the common server; ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2194-2195] “the laser is sent to Alice and Bob and encoded in X-basis, Y-basis or Z-basis by Alice and Bob independently and randomly. … Encoding. At Alice’s (Bob’s) device, the light pulses are filtered by an optical filter for removing unwanted optical signals.”) modulating the optical pulses for quantum communication; and re-transmitting the modulated optical pulses to the common server; ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2194-2195] “Encoding. At Alice’s (Bob’s) device … the light pulses pass through a polarization beam splitter (PBS1) and are phase-randomized by a phase modulator (PM1). The decoy states are got by intensity modulators (IM1). The intensities of output signal states and the two decoy states are (μ, ν, o). After the light pulses are reflected by FM and go through the PBS2. The encoding circuit has two beam splitters which construct an AMZI, two intensity modulators (IM2 and IM3), and a phase modulator (PM2). By AMZI, the pulses are splitting into early ones and late ones, which are in two eigenstates of time-bin base. … The pulses are attenuated to single-photon level by an attenuator (Att), then pass through the polarization beam splitter and go back to Charlie”) wherein each user system comprises an energy bounding component for limiting Trojan horse attack (THA) ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2194-2195] “At Alice’s (Bob’s) device, the light pulses are filtered by an optical filter for removing unwanted optical signals. Then, part of light pulses are used to estimate the acquired photon number distribution (PND) by a beam splitter (BS3) and intensity detector (ID). This is for countering against possible Trojan-horse attack … The pulses are attenuated to single-photon level by an attenuator (Att), then pass through the polarization beam splitter and go back to Charlie.”) and wherein the energy bounding component comprises … limiting an optical power input into the user system. ([LI, Section 2.1, page 2194-2195] “At Alice’s (Bob’s) device, the light pulses are filtered by an optical filter for removing unwanted optical signals. Then, part of light pulses are used to estimate the acquired photon number distribution (PND) by a beam splitter (BS3) and intensity detector (ID). This is for countering against possible Trojan-horse attack … The pulses are attenuated to single-photon level by an attenuator (Att), then pass through the polarization beam splitter and go back to Charlie. … Post-processing. Alice and Bob perform information reconciliation for error correction and privacy amplification for removing the leaked information”).
However, LI does not teach “and wherein the energy bounding component comprises a passive power limiter for limiting an optical power …”.
In analogous teaching DEROSA teaches “and wherein the energy bounding component comprises a passive power limiter for limiting an optical power …” ([DEROSA, abstract] “We describe the performance of a fiber-optic power-limiting component. The passive device is dynamically responsive to the input signal and has been shown to attenuate continuous-wave power with a dynamic range of up to 9 dB at 150 mW of input power at 1550 nm.”) ([DEROSA, Introduction] “The device operates passively and reversibly to the input signal and attenuates the power rapidly without use of electronics or feedback mechanisms. We also discuss the parameters that can be used to control the limiting threshold and clamping level and how the intrinsic absorption properties of the material affect wavelength performance.”) ([DEROSA, section 3 Results and Discussion] “The power in the defocused beam is only partially coupled into the output fiber lens on the opposite side of the gap, and this ultimately results in an attenuated signal. When the power is reduced, the material cools down because of thermal diffusion, and the defocusing becomes less severe and thus results in less attenuation. It is this photothermal defocusing mechanism that allows the device to be passively responsive to signal input power.”) ([DEROSA, fig. 1] “Schematic of the optical fiber power limiter.”)
Thus, given the teaching of DEROSA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of passive power limiter by DEROSA into a measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network by LI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because DEROSA recognizes the benefits of a passive power limiter ([DEROSA, section 4 Conclusion] “We have demonstrated that a simple and effective functioning fiber-optic signal power limiter can be designed and fabricated. This type of attenuating device is unique because no electronics are required to activate the attenuating mechanism. The device works passively, reversibly, and rapidly to incoming cw signal power. It is also a reciprocal device in that the attenuating mechanism works equally for a light signal propagating in either direction. One major attractive feature of the design of this device is that the pigtailing operation is done quickly with little to no effort. There is no need for expensive, active, aligning pigtailing instruments, which are typically necessary for micro-optic components and other planar waveguide devices.”)
However, LI-DEROSA does not teach “limiting Trojan horse attack (THA) without estimating a photon number distribution in the optical pulses”.
In analogous teaching LUCAMARINI teaches “limiting Trojan horse attack (THA) without estimating a photon number distribution in the optical pulses” ([LUCAMARINI, section IV A] “An entirely passive architecture against the THA is drawn schematically in Fig. 5. It is based on a sequence of components that actualize the security argument described so far. A silica-based optical fiber loop (OFL) of length L defines the LIDT of the transmitter and is followed by a filtering block F, an optical isolator I and an attenuator A. … The OFL acts as a regulator for high-power input light and as a filter for wavelengths longer than the bend-edge point. Together with the optical filter F, which is tuned to let pass the wavelength of the quantum channel and stop all the others, it limits the maximum number N of photons that Eve can inject into Alice’s module in the chosen time unit. In other terms, it represents the optical component to which the LIDT should apply.”) ([LUCAMARINI, section I Introduction] “In Fig. 1, the Trojan horse attack (THA) against an optical QKD setup is sketched.”)
Thus, given the teaching of LUCAMARINI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of limiting Trojan horse attack by LUCAMARINI into a measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network by LI-DEROSA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because LUCAMARINI recognizes the need to counter Trojan horse attacks ([LUCAMARINI, section I Introduction] “the security analysis of the THA remains elusive and no security-proof solution has been derived to date. … In this work, we analyze an entirely passive architecture to counteract the THA. We provide quantitative bounds that connect the values of the passive optical components to the security of the QKD system. … if Alice characterizes the relevant optical components in her apparatus, she can bound the information leakage and attain security through an adequate level of privacy amplification”)
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites a method claim that performs the features of network claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1. LI teaches of “A method of operating a measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network” ([LI, Section 2.2, page 2195] “Here, we discuss the security of the proposed protocol. Firstly, the security of MDI-QKD protocol is equivalent to that of time-reversal EPR protocol [48–50]. While, the security of EPR protocol is based on quantum entanglement protocol. So, the MDI-QKD protocol is secure”)
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites of a user system for a measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network that performs the features of network claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claim 1. LI further teaches “user system” ([LI, Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of our RFI-MDI-QKD with an untrusted laser source)
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites of a method to operate the user system of claim 13. The method of claim 16 recites of similar features of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in a similar manner as in the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI teach all limitations of claims 1 and 7. LI further teaches “wherein the common server comprises one or more detectors for generating measurement results from the re-transmitted modulated optical pulses from the plurality of user systems” ([LI, Section 2.1, page 2194-2195] “Bell state measurement. Charlie performs Bell state measurement by BS1 and two single-photon detectors (SPD1 and SPD2). When the input photons are projected into the state … i.e., the two SPDs coincide in two alternate time bins (early or late), Charlie will announce successful outputs.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI in view of TRIFONOV (US-20090022322-A1).
Regarding claim 11, LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI teach all limitations of claim 10. However, LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI does not teach “comprising using one or more time delay modules for timing calibration of the re-transmitted modulated optical pulses from the user systems at the common server.”.
In analogous teaching TRIFONOV teaches “comprising using one or more time delay modules for timing calibration of the re-transmitted modulated optical pulses from the user systems at the common server.” ([TRIFONOV, para. 0007] “QKD systems and methods having time-bin entanglement and active phase tracking and stabilization are disclosed. The method includes generating in an initial state preparation stage ("Charlie") pairs of coherent photons at a first wavelength, such as a known telecommunications wavelength. … A phase loop in Charlie is used to provide a phase delay between the first-wavelength coherent "pump" photons. State detection stages (Alice and Bob) are optically coupled to Charlie and each receive respective entangled photons from Charlie. These photons are given respective second and third phase delays by respective phase delay loops in Alice and Bob. The relative phase delays are tracked using reference optical signals generated by Charlie”).
Thus, given the teaching of TRIFONOV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of time delay modules by TRIFONOV into a measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network by LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because TRIFONOV recognizes the need to improve quantum key distribution ([TRIFONOV, para, 0015] “The present invention improves upon the QKD system disclosed in Brendel, and utilizes the stabilization method disclosed … The invention allows state preparation and state detection at one telecommunication (“telecom”) wavelength, plus convenient stabilization and synchronization of three QKD stations.”).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI in view of FU (US-20200169398-A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI teach all limitations of claims 4 and 10. However, LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI does not teach “comprising a classical communication channel between the common server and each of the user systems for communicating the measurement results.”.
In analogous teaching FU teaches “comprising a classical communication channel between the common server and each of the user systems for communicating the measurement results.” ([FU, para. 0034] “During actual implementations, each of the QKD devices of the sender and the receiver, each of the QKS devices of the sender and the receiver, and each of the data devices of the sender and the receiver may be connected via classical channels in wired, wireless, or other forms, to perform operations such as negotiations and data transmission”).
Thus, given the teaching of FU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of classical channels by FU into a measurement-device-independent (MDI) quantum key distribution (QKD) network by LI-DEROSA-LUCAMARINI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because FU recognizes the need to improve security ([FU, para. 0096] “The flow of using a real-time acquisition mechanism has been described through step 301 to step 306. To improve security, all data interaction in a classical channel in the above processing flow can be carried out based on HTTPS connection”)
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
LIRAKIS (US-20140016779-A1): This prior art teaches of a method for resisting tampering, the method including discovering a plurality of electronic packages for communication, each of the plurality of electronic packages having an associated quantum state table, mapping a plurality of communications paths among the plurality of electronic packages, for each communication path of the plurality of communications paths, making an entry into the quantum state table, negotiating key material for each of the plurality of communications paths, for a plurality of data exchanges along each of the plurality of communications paths generating a key, and encrypting a data exchange on a communications path with the key.
LOWANS (US-20130251145-A1): This prior art teaches of an apparatus for quantum key distribution are described, in particular including methods and networks 300 arranged to improve and/or ensure the security of data transmitted thereby by (I) ensuring a certain level of loss within at least part of the network, (ii) placing a penultimate and an endpoint nodes in situated in a secure second enclave, (iii) analyzing a transmitted bit stream to ensure that it does not provide an unacceptable amount of information about the key that may be generated therefrom, and/or (iv) varying the order in which bits are used to generate a key.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AFAQ ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.A./
08/25/2026
/AFAQ ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights