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 .
Claims Status Claims 78 & 82 filed 02/11/2026 have been amended. Claims 78, 79, and 82-88 are pending and have been rejected. Claims 80 and 81 were previously canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 78 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 78-83 & 86-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedl (U.S. Publication 2009/0161866), hereinafter “Riedl” in view of Zinner (U.S. Publication 2021/0194922), hereinafter “Zinner” and Choi (U.S. Publication 2017/0230174), hereinafter “Choi”.
As to claim 78, Riedl discloses a method of secure communication between a sender and a receiver, wherein the sender and receiver both have clocks, the method comprising the steps of: (a) synchronizing the clocks at the sender and receiver (Riedl, see [0049], One-Time Pad principle using accurate time synchronization between the communicating parties, wherein clocks are synchronized); (c) sending a secure, encrypted message from the sender to the receiver containing the time of transmission of the communication in (Riedl, see [0078], at the agreed start time of the encrypted communication, both parties note the point that they have reached in the One-Time Pad) (b) and an anticipated signal strength of the communication when it reaches the receiver (Rield, see [0077], when a party wishes to initiate an encrypted communication it calls the other party signaling in any suitable form that it wishes such a communication and this action will select the same point within the One-Time Pads at both ends); Riedl is silent to (b) transmitting, by the sender to the receiver, an unencrypted communication comprised of one or more information pulses sent along at least one medium, the at least one medium being one or more of electric wire, air, fiber optic cable, or vacuum, each of the electric wire, air, fiber optic cable, and vacuum having a speed of transmission, and wherein the unencrypted communication has an anticipated transit time can be determined by at least one of the sender and the receiver based on the at least one medium and the speed of transmission; (d) validating the communication in (b) by performing the following steps: i. confirming that the unencrypted communication arrives and is completed within the anticipated transit time based on information contained in the secure message of (c), thereby eliminating the possibility that an eavesdropping device has introduced latency into the transmission; However, Zinner discloses (b) transmitting, by the sender to the receiver, an unencrypted communication comprised of one or more information pulses sent along at least one medium, the at least one medium being one or more of electric wire, air, fiber optic cable, or vacuum, each of the electric wire, air, fiber optic cable, and vacuum having a speed of transmission, and wherein the unencrypted communication has an anticipated transit time can be determined by at least one of the sender and the receiver based on the at least one medium and the speed of transmission (Zinner, see [0035], the transit time can change – if the distance between the first and second subscribers changes or if a different cable type is used for the connection); (d) validating the communication in (b) by performing the following steps: i. confirming that the unencrypted communication arrives and is completed within the anticipated transit time based on information contained in the secure message of (Zinner, see [0010-0012], second subscriber determines if there is an eavesdropper based on recorded time at which the data packet is received and comparing this recoded time with the timestamp contained in the received data packet) (c), thereby eliminating the possibility that an eavesdropping device has introduced latency into the transmission (Zinner, see [0019] and [0062], the second subscriber additionally also assesses the determination that the time stamp is before or more than a predefined tolerance time after the time at which the first subscriber can have transmitted the data packet as an indication that the communication between the first subscriber and the second subscriber is being eavesdropped on without authorization); Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riedl in view of Choi in order to further modify the method for secure communication from the teachings of Riedl with the method for network connection for eavesdropping from the teachings of Zinner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to determine whether the communication is being eavesdropped on by a subscriber looped in without authorization (Zinner – 0002). Riedl and Zinner is silent to ii. confirming the security of each pulse in the transmission of (b) using the methods in (d) i. and (d) ii.; and iii. wherein the confirmation of (d) ii.; has a margin of error that is limited by the precision of the clocks, transmitting and receiving apparatus, and quantum uncertainty. However, Choi discloses ii. confirming the security of each pulse in the transmission of (b) using the methods in (d) i. and (d)ii. (Choi, see [0082], the transmission of the optical pulse sequence of the transmitting apparatus is performed on the basis of a predetermined basis sequence and a predetermined bit sequence); and iii. wherein the confirmation of (d) ii.; has a margin of error that is limited by the precision of the clocks, transmitting and receiving apparatus, and quantum uncertainty (Choi, see [0041], the synchronization of the start-point according to at least one embodiment may be performed even when malfunction occurs due to an external attack or a system error while the quantum key distribution system is operating normally). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi in order to further modify the method for secure communication from the teachings of Riedl with the method for network connection for eavesdropping from the teachings of Zinner and the method for synchronizing data in quantum key distribution from the teachings of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to enabling a quantum key distribution system to have a synchronized start-point of quantum data (Choi – 0002).
As to claim 79, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78. Riedl further disclose wherein the secure message of (c) is sent as part of the communication of (b) (Riedl, see [0078], at the agreed start time of the encrypted communication, both parties note the point that they have reached in the One-Time Pad).
As to claim 82, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78, Choi further disclose wherein the transmission in (b) is sent at the speed of light within the predetermined medium (Choi, see [0052], transmitting between apparatus for the quantum key distribution is close to the speed of light).
As to claim 83, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78, wherein step (b) includes the transmission of identical messages to multiple receivers from the sender (Riedl, see [0089], each piece of information stored can have a unique time stamp, wherein the message will however record the time stamp used in unencrypted form as part of the message header); and wherein step (c) includes multiple secure, encrypted messages based on corresponding expected transit times and signal strengths to each receiver (Rield, see [0077], messages are encrypted in the latency of the telecommunications network. See [0091], telecommunications system latency can delay messages between synchronized parties).
As to claim 86, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78, wherein an additional unbreakable, secure, encrypted message is sent from the receiver to the sender confirming private receipt of the message in (b) (Riedl, see [0078], at the agreed start time of the encrypted communication, both parties note the point that they have reached in the One-Time Pad).
As to claim 87, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78. Riedl further discloses including the transmission of a one-time-pad cipher facilitating decryption of an encrypted message sent over a public transmission channel at any transmission speed (Riekl, see [0009], the sender would encrypt a message using the One-Time Pad. The receiver would use their same One-Time Pad to decrypt the message).
As to claim 88, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78. Riedl further discloses wherein the step validating the communication in (b) includes the step of confirming that the signal strength matches the information in the secure message of (c), thereby eliminating the possibility that a portion of the transmission was intercepted (Riedl, see [0078], at the agreed start time of the encrypted communication, both parties note the point that they have reached in the One-Time Pad. See [0089], each piece of information stored can have a unique time stamp, wherein the message will however record the time stamp used in unencrypted form as part of the message header).
Claim 84 & 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedl (U.S. Publication 2009/0161866), hereinafter “Riedl” in view of Zinner (U.S. Publication 2021/0194922), hereinafter “Zinner”, Choi (U.S. Publication 2017/0230174), hereinafter “Choi” and Khan (U.S. Publication 2022/0329558), hereinafter “Khan”.
As to claim 84, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78, but is silent to wherein the unencrypted message is sent via a plurality of transmission paths. However, Khan discloses wherein the unencrypted message is sent via a plurality of transmission paths (Khan, see [0396] & [0475], encrypted and/or unencrypted files in messages can have multiple paths). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riedl in view of Choi & Khan in order to further modify the method for secure communication from the teachings of Riedl with the method for network connection for eavesdropping from the teachings of Zinner and the method for synchronizing data in quantum key distribution from the teachings of Choi and the method of encrypted electronic message from the teachings of Khan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to process encrypted and unencrypted messages (Khan – 0475).
As to claim 85, Riedl in view of Zinner and Choi discloses everything disclosed in claim 78, but is silent to wherein: the message is sent through a plurality of hubs; and each hub confirms the privacy of the message received from a previous hub. However, Khan discloses wherein: the message is sent through a plurality of hubs (Khan, see [0334], certificate of security can be compiled to confirm multiple communications threads to the processing hub); and each hub confirms the privacy of the message received from a previous hub (Khan, see [0334], the information of fact of secure transmission of the replies, responses, and e-sign records, or fact of message parts being redacted in the send or from the reply using the processing hub). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riedl in view of Zinner, Choi & Khan in order to further modify the method for secure communication from the teachings of Riedl with the method for network connection for eavesdropping from the teachings of Zinner and the method for synchronizing data in quantum key distribution from the teachings of Choi and the method of encrypted electronic message from the teachings of Khan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow to process encrypted and unencrypted messages (Khan – 0475).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. This includes: U.S. Patent No. 6,021,203, which describes coercion resistant one-time-pad cryptosystem that facilitates transmission of messages having different levels of security. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA M PENA-SANTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-0627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am to 4pm 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, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 5712723889. 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.
/TANIA M PENA-SANTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2443
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443