DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed March 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US patent publication 20130315395 granted to Jacobs.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US patent publication 20130315395 granted to Jacobs.
Regarding claim 1, Jacobs meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“A quantum key distribution (QKD) apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors 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 paragraphs [0079] (Encryption key managers 180 and 182 may include identical pre-provisioned algorithms to privately perform functions related to sifting, error detection, error correction, and/or privacy amplification with respect to the corresponding raw encryption key, to provide corresponding authenticated encryption keys 184 and 185.); [0080] (The pre-provisioned algorithms may be seeded with values generated from authenticated keys 144 and 146 and/or authenticated keys, such that when encryption key managers 180 and 182 converge on solutions for the corresponding authenticated encryption keys 184 and 186, systems 102 and 104 are inherently or implicitly authenticated with respect to one another. Authentication may be performed without exchange of encrypted authentication keys, bit values, sifting algorithms, error detection and/or correction algorithms, and/or privacy amplification algorithms.) and Fig.1, Quantum transmitter and receiver elements 110, 114; Authentication elements 140, 142; and Key manager elements 180 and 182.
“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 paragraphs [0121] (FIG. 5 is a flowchart of method 500 of authenticating users in a QKD environment based on identical pre-provisioned or embedded authentic keys 502 and 504.); [0122] (At 506, a raw key QKD transmission 506 is performed to generate raw keys 508 and 510 and modify authentication keys 502 and 504, such as described in one or more examples above.) and Figs. 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 2, Jacobs 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 paragraphs [0049] (FIG. 1 is a block diagram of and first and second systems (e.g., Alice and Bob), to authenticate one other with relatively limited disclosures based on corresponding pre-provisioned or embedded secret authentication keys, and without disclosure or consumption of the authentication keys); [0136] (As described herein, systems 102 and 104 inherently or implicitly authenticate one another . . .)
Regarding claim 3, Jacobs 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 paragraphs [0067] (Systems 102 and 104 may be implemented to coordinate communication and/or control parameters with one another . . . One or more of the parameters may be user-controllable and/or may be established by software at each of systems 102 and 104. Systems 102 and 104 may communicate with one another over another communication channel, such as an Ethernet link, to coordinate transmission parameters.); and Figs. 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 4, Jacobs 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 paragraphs [0049]; [0121]; [0122] and Figs. 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 5, Jacobs meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the QKD function further includes at least one of a function of generating the cryptographic key by QKD and a function of providing the cryptographic key to the KM apparatus.” see paragraph [0077] (Systems 102 and 104 further include corresponding encryption key managers 180 and 182 to generate respective raw encryption keys based on a corresponding one of transmit event information 124 and detection event information 126 and subsequent information disclosures).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobs 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, 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 paragraphs [0043 (A QKD receiver may include a hardware-based true random number generator (HRNG) to add fictitious detection events to a raw QKD detection bit stream, which may to mask information about the embedded authentication key. The authentication key can be a relatively long random sequence, which may be used directly during an authentication session, or it may be indexed and a given segment may be used to seed a pseudo random number generator (PRNG) to generate an authentication key for a given session); [0047] (Authentication is achieved/verified during error correction/detection implicitly based on the presumption that only the legitimate QKD nodes know the authentication key, and thus know how to combine the raw bits during error detection and PA.);[0049] (FIG. 1 is a block diagram of and first and second systems (e.g., Alice and Bob), to authenticate one other with relatively limited disclosures based on corresponding pre-provisioned or embedded secret authentication keys, and without disclosure or consumption of the authentication keys).
Regarding claim 7, Jacobs 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 [0067] and [0077].
Claim 8 is a system claim that is substantially equivalent to apparatus claim 1. Jacobs further teaches a QKD system utilizing the apparatus {see paragraphs [0049]; [0126] and Fig. 1, element 100}. Therefore claim 8 is rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 9 is a method claim that is substantially equivalent to apparatus claim 1. Jacobs further teaches a method implemented by the apparatus {see paragraphs [0053]; [0126] and Fig. 5}. Therefore claim 9 is rejected by a similar rationale.
Claim 10 is a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim that is substantially equivalent to apparatus claim 1. Jacobs further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium implemented by the apparatus {see paragraph [0126]}. Therefore claim 10 is rejected by a similar rationale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW B SMITHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3876. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 (Teleworking).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 571-270-5143. 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.
/MATTHEW SMITHERS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2437