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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed 06/30/2026. Claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended, claim 7 has been cancelled, claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim 7 has been cancelled, therefore the rejections of claim 7 no longer stand.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation directed to deploying a virtual or containerized network function provides a “practical application that transforms the topology of a telecommunications network” and “improves the functioning of the telecommunications network by making the telecommunications network more robust to emergencies and/or damage to the network infrastructure”.
Examiner notes that the amended limitation directed to deploying a virtual or containerized network function is interpreted as an additional element, which was not found to integrate the claimed judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the claimed judicial exceptions in the analysis below. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, as the claim does not discuss transforming the topology of a telecommunications network or reflect how a network would be made more robust in an emergency. The claims do not describe the limitations directed to determining a proposed cloud network compute cloud configuration or determining a required protocol to implement the proposed configuration in a way that requires a particular technical implementation or at least could not be performed in the human mind. The 101 rejections have been updated to include the amended limitations and to clarify the reasoning given for the limitations that were not amended.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but are moot because of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant argues that the previously cited references do not teach the newly amended limitations related to a required end-to-end connectivity between nodes connected by quantum and classical channels in a hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network. Examiner notes that the Randriamasy reference, previously relied upon, in the rejection of claim 7, has been brought into the rejection of claim 1 in combination with the Xu and Smith references. Examiner further notes that the Rahman reference has been brought in to teach connecting nodes by a combination of quantum and classical channels, as well as deploying a virtualized network function cloud computing environment. The prior art rejections have been updated to include the amended limitations and to clarify the reasoning given for the limitations that were not amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-18 are directed to a method, claims 19 and 21 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claim 20 is directed to a system; therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-21 fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). However, claims 1-6 and 8-21 fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea, specifically the abstract ideas of “Mental Processes” (including observation, evaluation, and opinion) and “Mathematical Concepts (including mathematical calculations and relationships)”.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method; therefore, the claim does fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
determining. . . a proposed network compute cloud configuration for a hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network supported by a plurality of cloud environments (mental step directed to observation, evaluation – a person could determine a proposed network cloud configuration in their mind for an observed hybrid quantum classical telecommunications network comprising a plurality of cloud environments);
determining . . . a protocol that is required to implement the proposed network compute cloud configuration, based on a required end-to-end connectivity between nodes of the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network (mental step directed to observation, evaluation – a person could determine a protocol in their mind to implement an observed or mentally determined proposed network configuration based on observed end-to-end connectivity requirements between nodes of a hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a processing system including at least one processor; wherein the nodes are connected by a combination of quantum channels and classical channels; and delegating, by the processing system, a quantum function of the proposed network compute cloud configuration among the plurality of cloud environments, using the protocol, wherein the delegating comprises deploying at least one of: a virtual network function or a containerized network function to at least one cloud environment of the plurality of environments, and wherein the at least one of: the virtual function or the containerized network function provides a core network functionality for the hybrid quantum-classical network.
The processing system and at least one processor are interpreted as generic computer components used to merely apply the claimed abstract ideas. Delegating a quantum function among a plurality of cloud environments using a protocol comprising deploying a virtual or containerized network function is interpreted as mere data gathering and as transmitting information comprising a command over a network.
Wherein the virtual or containerized network function provides a core network functionality is interpreted as the intended use or necessary outcome of deploying the virtual or containerized function and does not provide patentable weight to this limitation.
These additional elements, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and its limitation is included in claim 1. The only difference is that claim 19 requires a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is interpreted as a generic computer component used to merely apply the abstract ideas as described in the rejection of claim 1 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 is a system claim and its limitation is included in claim 1. The only difference is that claim 20 requires a system, which is interpreted as a generic computer component used to merely apply the abstract ideas as described in the rejection of claim 1 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, and 21 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as they recite further embellishment of the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites wherein the processing system is part of a quantum-classical compute cloud network optimizer. This limitation is interpreted as an additional element further describing the technological environment comprising the computer components used to merely apply the claimed abstract ideas, which, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 recites wherein the quantum-classical compute cloud network optimizer includes a distributed quantum-classical blockchain database and a quantum federated reinforcement learning agent. This limitation is interpreted as an additional element further describing the technological environment comprising the computer components used to merely apply the claimed abstract ideas, which, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4 recites wherein the distributed quantum-classical blockchain database stores network data for the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network. This limitation is interpreted as an additional element further describing the technological environment in which the claimed abstract ideas are performed and as storing data in memory, which, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5 recites wherein the quantum federated reinforcement learning agent takes as an input at least one of: a traffic demand in the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network, locations of the plurality of cloud environments, a latency requirement of the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network, or a cost of the proposed network compute cloud configuration and generates as an output a delegation of the quantum function. Taking at least a traffic demand as input and outputting a delegation are interpreted as additional elements further describing the technological environment in which the claimed abstract ideas are performed and as receiving and transmitting data over a network, which, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6 recites wherein the plurality of cloud environments includes at least one external cloud network and at least one internal cloud network. This limitation is interpreted as an additional element further describing the technological environment comprising the computer components used to merely apply the claimed abstract ideas, which, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum offline communication. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of data observed in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites wherein the protocol comprises a prepare and send universal blind quantum computation protocol. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of protocol determined in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 10 recites wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum online communication. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of data observed in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites wherein the protocol comprises a measurement only-universal blind quantum computation protocol. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of protocol determined in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-quantum offline communication. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of data observed in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites wherein the protocol comprises a pseudo-secret random qubit generator protocol. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of protocol determined in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 14 recites wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-no quantum communication. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of data observed in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recites wherein the protocol comprises a prepare and send fully homomorphic encryption protocol. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of protocol determined in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 16 recites wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-no quantum communication. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of data observed in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites wherein the protocol comprises a classical fully homomorphic encryption for quantum circuits protocol. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the kind of protocol determined in the mental step as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 18 recites wherein the quantum function comprises at least one of: a quantum computation, quantum federated reinforcement learning, a quantum virtualized network function, or a quantum containerized network function. This limitation is interpreted as a further description of the information delegated, or transmitted over a network as described in the rejection of claim 1 and, when considered as a whole with the claimed abstract ideas, does not integrate those abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than those abstract ideas.
Claim 21 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and its limitation is included in claim 18. Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-6 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Resource Allocation for Federated Edge Learning in Quantum Internet”, herein Xu) in view of Smith et al (US 11477015 B1, herein Smith), in further view of Rahman (US 20210175976 A1, herein Rahman), in further view of Randriamasy (US 20140254382 A1, herein Randriamasy).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method comprising: determining, by a processing system including at least one processor, a proposed network compute cloud configuration for a hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network [supported by a plurality of cloud environments] (pg. 143 left column para. 2 recites “we propose a stochastic QKD resource (i.e., wavelength) allocation model to optimize the QKD deployment cost of the Quantum Internet. To protect FEL models and public keys from eavesdropping attacks, we propose a hierarchical architecture for quantum-secured FEL systems that includes the FEL layer, the control and management layer, and the QKD infrastructure layer. To handle the dynamics of security demands from the FEL layer, we model the QKD resource allocation of QKD managers and QKD controllers in the control and management layer as a stochastic programming model that allocates QKD resources from the QKD infrastructure layer to cluster heads in the FEL layer” (i.e., a method of determining a network cloud configuration for a hybrid quantum-classical system));
determining, by the processing system, a protocol that is required to implement the proposed network compute cloud configuration (pg. 145 left column para. 2 recites “each QKD manager first queries the secret-key status and then sends configurations to QKD controllers via the simple network management protocol (SNMP). According to the received instructions, QKD controllers handshake with QKD nodes for detailed configurations. In the QKD infrastructure layer, there are three types of nodes (i.e., QKD nodes, trusted relays, and untrusted relays) and two types of links (i.e., key management (KM) and QKD links). We consider that the FEL nodes are co-located with the QKD nodes and that different types of links can be multiplexed within a single fiber. Therefore, the topology of the QKD layer follows that of the FEL layer, which can be denoted by G(V, E). Here, V represents the set of FEL/QKD nodes, and E denotes the collection of fiber connections” (i.e., determining a protocol to implement the network configuration based on a network topology));
and delegating, by the processing system, a quantum function of the proposed network compute cloud configuration [among the plurality of cloud environments], using the protocol (pg. 143 right column para. 3 recites “we propose a learning-based QKD resource allocation scheme for quantum-secured FEL systems, which is strengthened by federated reinforcement learning. In particular, we use the model-free off-policy soft actor-critic (SAC) structure to learn the optimal QKD resource allocation strategy. For each QKD manager and each controller, a policy network is adopted to configure the QKD nodes by learning the allocation strategy during the interaction with quantum-secured FEL systems. Moreover, a Q-network is adopted as a critic of each QKD manager and controller to evaluate the state-action values of its local policy, i.e., the performance of the local policy” (i.e., delegating a quantum function based on the network protocol)).
However, while Xu teaches delegating quantum functions in a network cloud configuration, Xu does not explicitly teach a plurality of cloud environments.
Smith teaches a plurality of cloud environments (col. 3 lines 29-36 recite “an account node may have access to a cloud-based QPU system or other quantum computing resource that can run quantum algorithms remotely from the access node. Accordingly, the example account nodes 11A, 11B can be implemented using entirely "classical" computing hardware, or the example account nodes 11A, 11B may include some quantum computing hardware”. Col. 7 line 59 – col. 8 line 10 recite “The example computing environment 101 can provide services to the access nodes 110, for example, as a cloud-based or remote-accessed computer, as a distributed computing resource, as a supercomputer or another type of high-performance computing resource, or in another manner. As shown in FIG. 2, to access computing resources of the computing environment 101, the access nodes 110 send programs 112 to the server 108 and in response, the access nodes 110 receive data 114 from the server 108. The access nodes 110 may access services of the computing environment 101 in another manner, and the server 108 or other components of the computing environment 101 may expose computing resources in another manner. Any of the access nodes 110 can operate local to, or remote from, the server 108 or other components of the computing environment 101. In the example shown in FIG. 2, the access node 110A has a local data connection to the server 108 and communicates directly with the server 108 through the local data connection” (i.e., a plurality of cloud environment configurations)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings by adapting the cloud network configuration optimization and delegation method from Xu to operate across the distributed cloud configurations in Smith. Smith and Xu are both directed to methods of operating hybrid quantum-classical systems in a cloud environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the network configuration optimization methods from Xu could be extended to distributed cloud environment nodes like those taught by Smith.
However, while the combination of Smith and Xu teaches a hybrid telecommunications network (see at least column 9 lines 32-35 of Smith), the combination of Smith and Xu does not explicitly teach wherein the nodes are connected by a combination of quantum channels and classical channels; wherein the delegating comprises deploying at least one of: a virtual network function or a containerized network function to at least one cloud environment of the plurality of cloud environments; and wherein the at least one of: the virtual network function or the containerized network function provides a core network functionality for the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network.
Rahman teaches wherein the nodes are connected by a combination of quantum channels and classical channels (at least fig. 2A-2E and para. [0019] recite “Quantum entanglement is established between the first processing node and the second processing node based on transportation of a first quantum entangled object of the group of quantum entangled objects via the quantum channel, resulting in a transported first quantum entangled object. The operations further include facilitating a classical communication channel between the first processing node and the second processing node, the classical communication channel adapted to exchange quantum state information of a measurement performed upon the first quantum entangled object from the first processing node to the second processing node to obtain exchanged quantum state information”. Para. [0079] recites “The quantum entanglement distribution system 250 establishes quantum entanglement distribution for a quantum channel. In general, for quantum communication applications, two channels are provided between the source and the destination: a quantum link, or quantum channel, and a classical link or classical channel” (i.e., connecting nodes of a hybrid classical-quantum network with channels));
wherein the delegating comprises deploying at least one of: a virtual network function or a containerized network function to at least one cloud environment of the plurality of cloud environments (para. [0094] recites “a virtualized communication network is presented that can be used to implement some or all of the subsystems and functions of communication network 100, the subsystems and functions of systems 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250 and process 280 presented in FIGS. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G and 3. For example, virtualized communication network 300 can facilitate in whole or in part a generation of entangled photons, responsive to a request for quantum entanglement, and efficient and reliable distribution of the entangled photons to predetermined processing nodes based on the request. Quantum agents are employed, that in at least some applications, evaluate communication and/or processing requests to determine whether quantum entanglement is required”. Para. [0095] recites “a cloud networking architecture is shown that leverages cloud technologies and supports rapid innovation and scalability via a transport layer 350, a virtualized network function cloud 325 and/or one or more cloud computing environments 375” (i.e., virtual network functions can be deployed, or delegated, in a cloud computing environment of a plurality of cloud computing environments)),
and wherein the at least one of: the virtual network function or the containerized network function provides a core network functionality for the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network (Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted as the intended use or necessary outcome of deploying the virtual or containerized function and does not provide patentable weight to this claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings by adapting the cloud network configuration optimization and delegation method from Xu to operate across the hybrid cloud configuration in Rahman. Rahman and Xu are both directed to methods of operating hybrid quantum-classical systems in a cloud environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nodes in the network configuration from Xu could be connected using the quantum and classical channels in the virtual network function cloud from Rahman.
However, while the combination of Smith, Xu, and Rahman teaches a hybrid telecommunications network (see at least column 9 lines 32-35 of Smith), the combination of Smith, Xu, and Rahman does not explicitly teach wherein a protocol is based on a required end-to-end connectivity between nodes of the [hybrid] telecommunications network.
Randriamasy teaches wherein a protocol is based on a required end-to-end connectivity between nodes of the [hybrid] telecommunications network (para. [0007] recites “a method for optimization of IP traffic between a User Equipment having access to an IP network via an IP Connectivity Access Network, and an IP connection endpoint in said IP network, for an application allowing a choice in said IP connection endpoint, said method comprising at least one step based on a selection of an IP connection endpoint according to end-to-end IP traffic optimization criteria” (i.e., a method for optimizing a network protocol based on end-to-end connectivity between endpoints, or nodes)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings by modifying the communication protocol from Xu (as modified by Smith) with the end-to-end connectivity network traffic optimization method from Randriamasy. Xu and Randriamasy are both directed to network configuration systems, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the end-to-end optimization method from Randriamasy in Xu’s network configuration optimization method to optimize the connection between nodes in the hybrid quantum-classical network configuration.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing system is part of a quantum-classical compute cloud network optimizer (Xu pg. 148 left column para. 4 recites “we first formulate the QKD resource allocation problem as a deterministic linear programming model. Furthermore, considering the uncertainty, i.e., the required secret-key rates, in quantum-secured FEL systems, we develop a stochastic programming model for QKD resource allocation. In the resource allocation model, the management signals are usually brief and can be encoded as quantum information and transmitted in QKD links, and thus the data transmission is secured by quantum cryptography” (i.e., a quantum-classical network optimization system)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the quantum-classical compute cloud network optimizer includes a distributed quantum-classical blockchain database (Smith col. 2 lines 60-65 recite “Blockchains maintained by the example blockchain system shown in FIG. 1 encode information in quantum states. For example, a blockchain may include a quantum state (e.g., a Quantum Rotation Ledger, QRL), and perform operations on the quantum state according to the techniques and rules described herein”. Smith col. 8 lines 36-39 recite “the server 108 includes a personal computing device, a computer cluster, one or more servers, databases, networks, or other types of classical or quantum computing equipment” (i.e., a quantum-classical blockchain database)) and a quantum federated reinforcement learning agent (Xu pg. 143 right column para. 3 recites “we propose a learning-based QKD resource allocation scheme for quantum-secured FEL (i.e., federated edge learning) systems, which is strengthened by federated reinforcement learning. Q-network is adopted as a critic of each QKD manager and controller to evaluate the state-action values of its local policy, i.e., the performance of the local policy. To avoid direct reward sharing, QKD managers encrypt the Q-networks and then share them with QKD controllers for their local policy evaluation and improvement. In this way, the incomplete experience issues of QKD controllers can be addressed, thus improving the training efficiency of agents in the control and management layer. In addition, to further improve convergence efficiency, the local policy of QKD controllers is aggregated as the global QKD resource allocation policy for QKD managers after improving the local policies of QKD controllers” (i.e., a quantum federated reinforcement learning agent)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the distributed quantum-classical blockchain database stores network data for the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network (Smith col. 2 lines 60-65 recite “Blockchains maintained by the example blockchain system shown in FIG. 1 encode information in quantum states. For example, a blockchain may include a quantum state (e.g., a Quantum Rotation Ledger, QRL), and perform operations on the quantum state according to the techniques and rules described herein”. Smith col. 8 lines 36-39 recite “the server 108 includes a personal computing device, a computer cluster, one or more servers, databases, networks, or other types of classical or quantum computing equipment” (i.e., a quantum-classical blockchain database storing data related to the hybrid quantum-classical network)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the quantum federated reinforcement learning agent takes as an input at least one of: a traffic demand in the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network, locations of the plurality of cloud environments, a latency requirement of the hybrid quantum-classical telecommunications network, or a cost of the proposed network compute cloud configuration and generates as an output a delegation of the quantum function (Xu pg. 143 left column para. 2 recites “we propose a stochastic QKD resource (i.e., wavelength) allocation model to optimize the QKD deployment cost of the Quantum Internet. To protect FEL models and public keys from eavesdropping attacks, we propose a hierarchical architecture for quantum-secured FEL systems that includes the FEL layer, the control and management layer, and the QKD infrastructure layer. To handle the dynamics of security demands from the FEL layer, we model the QKD resource allocation of QKD managers and QKD controllers in the control and management layer as a stochastic programming model that allocates QKD resources from the QKD infrastructure layer to cluster heads in the FEL layer” (i.e., using the potential cost of the network configuration to determine how to delegate the quantum functions)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cloud environments includes at least one external cloud network and at least one internal cloud network (Smith col. 3 lines 29-32 recite “an account node may have access to a cloud-based QPU system or other quantum computing resource that can run quantum algorithms remotely from the access node”. Smith col. 9 lines 59-63 recite “The example computing environment 101 can provide services to the access nodes 110, for example, as a cloud-based or remote-accessed computer, as a distributed computing resource, as a supercomputer or another type of high-performance computing resource, or in another manner” (i.e., at least one internal and one external aspect of a cloud network)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum function comprises at least one of: a quantum computation, quantum federated reinforcement learning, a quantum virtualized network function, or a quantum containerized network function (Xu pg. 143 right column para. 3 recites “we propose a learning-based QKD resource allocation scheme for quantum-secured FEL (i.e., federated edge learning) systems, which is strengthened by federated reinforcement learning. Q-network is adopted as a critic of each QKD manager and controller to evaluate the state-action values of its local policy, i.e., the performance of the local policy. To avoid direct reward sharing, QKD managers encrypt the Q-networks and then share them with QKD controllers for their local policy evaluation and improvement. In this way, the incomplete experience issues of QKD controllers can be addressed, thus improving the training efficiency of agents in the control and management layer. In addition, to further improve convergence efficiency, the local policy of QKD controllers is aggregated as the global QKD resource allocation policy for QKD managers after improving the local policies of QKD controllers” (i.e., a quantum federated reinforcement learning function)).
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and its limitation is included in claim 1. The only difference is that claim 19 requires a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Smith col. 20 lines 64-67 recite “Some of the operations described in this specification can 65 be implemented as operations performed by a data processing apparatus on data stored on one or more computer-readable storage devices or received from other sources”). Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 is a system claim and its limitation is included in claim 1. The only difference is that claim 20 requires a system (Smith col. 20 lines 64-67 recite “Some of the operations described in this specification can 65 be implemented as operations performed by a data processing apparatus on data stored on one or more computer-readable storage devices or received from other sources”). Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 21 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and its limitation is included in claim 18. Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Resource Allocation for Federated Edge Learning in Quantum Internet”, herein Xu) in view of Smith et al (US 11477015 B1, herein Smith), in further view of Rahman (US 20210175976 A1, herein Rahman), in further view of Randriamasy (US 20140254382 A1, herein Randriamasy), in further view of Quantum Protocol Zoo (“Prepare-and-Send Universal Blind Quantum Computation”, herein QPZ Prepare-and-Send).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy does not explicitly teach wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum offline communication.
QPZ Prepare and Send teaches wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum offline communication (QPZ Prepare-and-Send para. 1 recites “The example protocol achieves the functionality of Secure Client-Server Delegated Quantum Computation by assigning quantum computation to an untrusted device while maintaining privacy of the input, output and computation of the client. The client requires to be able to prepare and send quantum states while the server requires to possess a device with quantum memory, measurement and entanglement generation technology. Following description deals with a method which involves quantum offline and classical online communication, called Blind Quantum Computation. It means the protocol needs one-time quantum communication at the end or starting of the protocol while continuous classical communication between the parties, throughout the execution” (i.e., classical online-quantum offline communication connectivity))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings by modifying the network configuration protocol from Xu (as modified by Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy,) with the prepare-and-send protocol from QPZ Prepare-and-Send. Xu and QPZ Prepare-and-Send teach methods of network node communication in a hybrid quantum-classical environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adapt the protocol from Xu to include the quantum offline and classical online communication protocol from QPZ Prepare-and-Send to further secure the communication between potentially untrusted network nodes.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, Randriamasy, and QPZ Prepare-and-Send teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the protocol comprises a prepare and send universal blind quantum computation protocol (QPZ Prepare-and-Send para. 1 recites “The example protocol achieves the functionality of Secure Client-Server Delegated Quantum Computation by assigning quantum computation to an untrusted device while maintaining privacy of the input, output and computation of the client. The client requires to be able to prepare and send quantum states while the server requires to possess a device with quantum memory, measurement and entanglement generation technology. Following description deals with a method which involves quantum offline and classical online communication, called Blind Quantum Computation. It means the protocol needs one-time quantum communication at the end or starting of the protocol while continuous classical communication between the parties, throughout the execution” (i.e., a prepare and send universal blind quantum computation protocol)).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Resource Allocation for Federated Edge Learning in Quantum Internet”, herein Xu) in view of Smith et al (US 11477015 B1, herein Smith), in further view of Rahman (US 20210175976 A1, herein Rahman), in further view of Randriamasy (US 20140254382 A1, herein Randriamasy), in further view of Quantum Protocol Zoo (“Measurement-Only Universal Blind Quantum Computation”, herein QPZ Measurement Only).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy does not explicitly teach wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum online communication.
QPZ Measurement Only teaches wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum online communication (QPZ Measurement Only pg. para. 1 recites “The example protocol achieves the functionality of Secure Client-Server Delegated Computation by assigning quantum computation to an untrusted device while maintaining privacy of the input, output and computation of the client. The client requires to be able to prepare and send quantum states while the server requires to possess a device with quantum memory, measurement and entanglement generation technology. Following description deals with a method which involves quantum online and classical online communication, called Blind Quantum Computation” (i.e., classical online-quantum online communication connectivity)).
See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, Randriamasy, and QPZ Measurement Only teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the protocol comprises a measurement only-universal blind quantum computation protocol (QPZ Measurement Only pg. 2 para. 1 recites “The following Universal Blind Quantum Computation (UBQC) protocol uses the unique feature of Measurement Based Quantum Computation (MBQC) that separates the classical and quantum parts of a computation” (i.e., a measurement only universal blind quantum computation protocol)).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Resource Allocation for Federated Edge Learning in Quantum Internet”, herein Xu) in view of Smith et al (US 11477015 B1, herein Smith), in further view of Rahman (US 20210175976 A1, herein Rahman), in further view of Randriamasy (US 20140254382 A1, herein Randriamasy), in further view of Quantum Protocol Zoo (“Pseudo-Secret Random Qubit Generator”, herein QPZ PSQRG).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy does not explicitly wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-quantum offline communication.
QPZ PSQRG teaches wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-no quantum communication (QPZ PSQRG para. 1 recites “The example protocol enables fully-classical parties to generate secret single qubit states using only public classical channels and a single quantum Server. An application of this functionality could be to carry out Delegated Quantum Computation by just classical online communication (classical communication throughout the protocol) and no quantum communication. This functionality could be used to replace a quantum channel completely such that a classical Client can perform various quantum applications over classical network connected to a quantum Server” (i.e., classical offline-no quantum communication connectivity)).
See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, Randriamasy, and QPZ PSQRG teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the protocol comprises a pseudo-secret random qubit generator protocol (QPZ PSQRG para. 1 recites “The example protocol enables fully-classical parties to generate secret single qubit states using only public classical channels and a single quantum Server. This functionality could be used to replace a quantum channel completely such that a classical Client can perform various quantum applications over classical network connected to a quantum Server. It allows a fully classical Client to instructs Server to generate random single qubit states such that Client has complete knowledge of the state of qubit prepared but Server does not” (i.e., a pseudo-secret random qubit generator protocol)).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Resource Allocation for Federated Edge Learning in Quantum Internet”, herein Xu) in view of Smith et al (US 11477015 B1, herein Smith), in further view of Rahman (US 20210175976 A1, herein Rahman), in further view of Randriamasy (US 20140254382 A1, herein Randriamasy), in further view of Quantum Protocol Zoo (“Prepare-and-Send Quantum Fully Homomorphic Encryption”, herein QPZ Prepare-and-Send FHE).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy does not explicitly teach wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical online communication-quantum offline communication.
QPZ Prepare-and-Send FHE teaches wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-quantum offline communication (QPZ Prepare-and-Send FHE para. 1 recites “This example protocol achieves the functionality of Secure Client-Server Delegated Computation by a method which involves quantum offline and classical offline communication, called Quantum Fully Homomorphic Encryption (QFHE). Offline communication means there is exchange of information is not required throughout the protocol but only once at the start or end of the protocol. It allows the Client to encrypt quantum data in such a way that Server can carry out any arbitrary quantum computations on the encrypted data without having to interact with the encrypting party. It hides the output and input of the computation while Server is allowed to choose the unitary operation for required computation. Thus, the circuit is known to the Server while efforts can be made to hide it from the encrypting party i.e. Client. Based on the existence of classical Homomorphic Encryption (HE) scheme, it comes with properties of correctness, compactness and full homomorphism . QFHE can be used to keep the circuit private to the Server and hidden from the Client unlike UBQC where the circuit is private to the Client and hidden from the Server” (i.e., classical offline-quantum offline communication connectivity)).
See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, Randriamasy, and QPZ FHE teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the protocol comprises a prepare and send fully homomorphic encryption protocol (QPZ Prepare-and-Send FHE pg. 1 para. 1 recites “This example protocol achieves the functionality of Secure Client-Server Delegated Computation by a method which involves quantum offline and classical offline communication, called Quantum Fully Homomorphic Encryption (QFHE). QPZ Prepare-and-Send FHE pg. 2 para. 1 recites “Homomorphic Encryption (HE) schemes can be divided into four stages: Key Generation generates keys for encryption, decryption, and evaluation of the circuit, Encryption encodes the input into a ciphertext using encryption key, Homomorphic Evaluation performs operations (implements the circuit) on the encrypted input using evaluation key and Decryption transforms result of the ciphertext to actual outcome of the circuit using decryption key. This protocol requires Client to prepare and send the quantum states to Server, hence the name, Prepare and Send QFHE” (i.e., a prepare-and-send fully homomorphic encryption protocol)).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Resource Allocation for Federated Edge Learning in Quantum Internet”, herein Xu) in view of Smith et al (US 11477015 B1, herein Smith), in further view of Rahman (US 20210175976 A1, herein Rahman), in further view of Randriamasy (US 20140254382 A1, herein Randriamasy), in further view of Quantum Protocol Zoo (“Classical Fully Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits”, herein QPZ FHE).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy teaches the method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, and Randriamasy does not explicitly teach wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-no quantum communication.
QPZ FHE teaches wherein the end-to-end connectivity comprises classical offline communication-no quantum communication (QPZ FHE para. 1 recites “The example protocol achieves the functionality of Delegated Quantum Computation by a method which involves fully classical offline and no quantum communication. It uses only classical Homomorphic Encryption (HE) scheme to evaluate quantum circuits for classical input/output. It allows a fully classical Client to hide her data such that Server can carry out any arbitrary quantum computation on the encrypted data without having any knowledge about Client’s inputs. It hides the output and input of the computation while Server is allowed to choose the unitary operation (any quantum gate) for required computation” (i.e., classical offline-no quantum communication connectivity)).
See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Xu, Smith, Rahman, Randriamasy, and QPZ FHE teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the protocol comprises a classical fully homomorphic encryption for quantum circuits protocol (QPZ FHE para. 1 recites “The example protocol achieves the functionality of Delegated Quantum Computation by a method which involves fully classical offline and no quantum communication. It uses only classical Homomorphic Encryption (HE) scheme to evaluate quantum circuits for classical input/output. It allows a fully classical Client to hide her data such that Server can carry out any arbitrary quantum computation on the encrypted data without having any knowledge about Client’s inputs. It hides the output and input of the computation while Server is allowed to choose the unitary operation (any quantum gate) for required computation” (i.e., a classical fully homomorphic encryption protocol)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110243331 A1 (Yasuda et al) teaches a communication network wherein a center node functions as a virtual remote node to a plurality of other nodes connected by quantum and classical channels.
US 20220408248 A1 (Balmakhtar et al) teaches a wireless communication network for performing quantum authentication using a network function virtualization infrastructure.
US 20210176278 A1 (Rahman et al) teaches a method for event detection and management in a quantum-classical communications network.
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 LEAH M FEITL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0900-1700 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on (571) 270-5871. 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.
/L.M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147
