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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/06/2026.
Claims 2-7 have been amended. New claims 11-14 have been added. Claims 1-14 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/06/2026 with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argued that Paragraph [0038] of Parry discloses that KMSs 12 coordinate securely through a communications channel with an authenticated connection. Even if, hypothetically, one of the KMSs 12 were considered to correspond to the claimed "opposing KM apparatus," the authentication described in paragraph [0038] is authentication between two KMSs 12, not authentication between a QKD apparatus and an opposing QKD apparatus nor authentication between a QKD apparatus and an opposing KM apparatus as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, the authenticated connection of paragraph [0038] does not correspond to the claimed "inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication indicating authentication processing with an opposing QKD apparatus,"-10-and further does not correspond to the claimed "KM-QKD connection authentication indicating authentication processing with an opposing KM apparatus." Rather, Parry merely describes KMS-to-KMS coordination over an authentication connection, which is materially different from claim 1.
Applicant’s argument is acknowledged but not persuasive because Parry expressly teaches authenticated coordination among QKD-network components and KMSs, the exchange and verification of key material, and the use of key swap and/or key relay operations between network nodes. When read as a whole and in a manner consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, Parry discloses or at least suggests the recited limitations. Applicant contends that paragraph [0038] and [0070] of Parry discloses only “KMS-to-KMS coordination” and not authentication between a QKD apparatus and an opposing QKD apparatus or opposing KM apparatus. It is respectfully disagreed because under a broad and reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations, the claimed “inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication” and “KM-QKD connection authentication” are satisfied by Parry’s authenticated coordination between the QKD network layer / QKD link layer and the KMS layer, as well as between corresponding nodes in the QKD network. It is further noted that Parry discloses that KMS 12 ensures continuous synchronization of its quantum key pool with that of the corresponding remote site for each site-to-site connection. The key pools are in sync so that the same quantum key material can be referenced and discovered during session key negotiation conducted by the sites' hosts. The KMSs 12 coordinate securely through a communications channel that is typically a conventional network, with an authenticated connection or each KMS 12 make a request into its respective underlying network layer, and all KMS coordination occurs through that layer.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a first authentication specifically labeled as “inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication,” and a second authentication specifically labeled as “KM-QKD connection authentication”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, nothing in the claim requires those precise labels or a standalone protocol exchange devoted exclusively to each label. The claim requires that the connection authentication indicate authentication processing with an opposing QKD apparatus and an opposing KM apparatus. Parry teaches that key generation, key relay, and KMS coordination occur in a trusted, authenticated framework which is adequate to meet the claimed limitation.
The rest of Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added dependent claims 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US patent publication 20220294616 granted to Parry et al.
Regarding claim 1, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“A quantum key distribution (QKD) apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors” see paragraph [0040] ( The present system is connected with a set of QKD communication links 28 between pairs of QKD devices 24 (see also FIG. 6 described below)”
“configured to: perform inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication indicating authentication processing with an opposing QKD apparatus, and key manager (KM)-QKD connection authentication indicating authentication processing with an opposing KM apparatus;” see paragraph [0038] (The KMSs 12 coordinate securely through a communications channel that is typically a conventional network, with an authenticated connection . . .)”
“and enable a QKD function in a case where the inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication is successful and the KM-QKD connection authentication is successful, wherein the QKD function includes a function of providing a cryptographic key generated by QKD to the opposing KM apparatus” see paragraph [0067] (indicate a successful receipt of all message slices containing the key material bits and a matching authentication value . . .)”
“and the KM-QKD connection authentication includes processing of verifying the opposing KM apparatus.” see paragraph [0070] (recipients will receive Key Swap Confirm Ack message(s) and validate the authentication of a Key Swap Confirm Ack message(s)).
Regarding claim 2, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to cause the communication interface to transmit, to a management system that manages a QKD system, a request for QKD apparatus-management system connection authentication indicating authentication processing with the management system, in a case where the inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication is successful and the KM-QKD connection authentication is successful, and the one or more hardware processors are configured to enable the QKD function in a case where it is mutually verified that the QKD apparatus is valid and the management system is valid by the QKD apparatus-management system connection authentication.” see paragraph [0070] (recipients will receive Key Swap Confirm Ack message(s) and validate the authentication of a Key Swap Confirm Ack message(s) . . .)
Regarding claim 3, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to cause the communication interface to transmit, to a management system that manages a QKD system, a request for QKD apparatus-management system connection authentication indicating authentication processing with the management system, the one or more hardware processors are configured to perform the inter-QKD- apparatus connection authentication and the KM-QKD connection authentication in a case where the QKD apparatus-management system connection authentication is successful.” see paragraph [0067]
Regarding claim 4, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to The apparatus according to wherein the KM-QKD connection authentication includes processing of verifying whether or not a KM apparatus connected to the opposing QKD apparatus and a KM apparatus that has an inter-KM-apparatus connection to the opposing KM apparatus are identical.” see paragraph [0070]
Regarding claim 5, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to The apparatus according to wherein the QKD function further includes a function of generating the cryptographic key by QKD.” see paragraph [0034] (QKD will generate quantum key material . . .)
Regarding claim 6, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to cause the communication interface to transmit, to the opposing QKD apparatus, a QKD start request indicating a request for the inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication, the QKD start request includes a QKD performance index,” {see paragraphs [0034]-[0035].
As understood by the examiner the performance index is the key distribution speed (see applicant’s specification; paragraph [0045] which is considered to be equivalent to Parry’s method of the hosts choosing the transfer speed used by the QKD to generate the quantum key material.}
“the inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication includes processing of mutually verifying validity of the QKD apparatus and validity of the opposing QKD apparatus, and processing of verifying whether or not the QKD performance index is satisfied, and the one or more hardware processors are configured to determine that the inter- QKD-apparatus connection authentication is successful in a case where the validity of the QKD apparatus and the validity of the opposing QKD apparatus are mutually verified and the QKD performance index is satisfied.” see paragraph [0070]
Regarding claim 7, Parry meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface, wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured to generate the cryptographic key by QKD with the opposing QKD apparatus verified to be valid by the inter-QKD-apparatus connection authentication; and cause the communication interface to provide the cryptographic key to the opposing KM apparatus verified to be valid by the KM-QKD connection authentication.” see paragraphs [0070] (recipients will receive Key Swap Confirm Ack message(s) and validate the authentication of a Key Swap Confirm Ack message(s) . . .)
Claim 8 is a system claim that is substantially equivalent to apparatus claim 1. Parry discloses a plurality of QKD apparatuses and a plurality of key manager (KM) apparatuses (see Figure 6). Therefore claim 8 is rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 9 is a method claim that is substantially equivalent to apparatus claim 1. Therefore claim 9 is rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 10 is a program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim that is substantially equivalent to apparatus claim 1. Parry discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see paragraphs [0012] and [0084]). Therefore claim 10 is rejected by a similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parry et al. (US 2022/0294616), hereinafter Parry in view of Syrivelis et al. (US 2022/0209943), hereinafter Syrivelis.
Regarding claim 11
Parry teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Parry does not explicitly teach, however, Syrivelis in analogous art discloses wherein the cryptographic key is shared with the opposing QKD apparatus connected to the QKD apparatus, and the shared cryptographic key is provided to the opposing KM apparatus connected to the QKD apparatus (Fig 1, para. [0038]-[0039, [0041], [0063]-[0076], Cryptographic keys and corresponding UUID labels (which may be used to identify the keys) may be generated by a key generation sub-system in one or more of the data centers and then distributed securely using QKD systems to provide secure key exchange among the datacenters. The keys and corresponding UUID labels are distributed using the QKD devices installed in each datacenter over a secure network such as an optical network… Each datacenter includes a cryptography key management orchestration service, which includes a Key Cache Orchestrator (KCO). The KCO caches keys generated by the local key generation sub-system or received from another key generation sub-system via the network of QKD devices; para. [0045]-[0047], [0077]-[0081], KEO of one datacenter may communicate with the KEO of other datacenters to manage provision of one or more cache keys to applications in the different datacenters… the key exchange orchestrator 38 of the computer cluster 12-1 is configured to communicate with the key exchange orchestrator 38 of the computer cluster 12-2 to manage provision of cryptographic key(s))
Parry and Syrivelis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of quantum key distribution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Parry to incorporate the teachings of Syrivelis. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to securely distribute the generated cryptographic keys among the computer clusters (Abstract Syrivelis).
Claims 12-14 recite limitations substantially similar in scope to claim 11, therefore, claims 12-14 are also rejected by a similar rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beal et al. (US 20090074192) directed to systems and methods for enhanced quantum key distribution (QKD) using an actively compensated QKD system.
Tanizawa et al. (US 20180062836) directed to a quantum key distribution speed and determining the update frequency (update interval) of the common key based on the common key distribution speed.
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 Shewaye Gelagay whose telephone number is (571)272-4219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 A.M. - 4 P.M..
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, Amy C. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-2238. 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.
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
