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 Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 4/16/2026. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 9, and 10 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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by “Berzanskis” (US 2005/0063547).
Regarding Claim 1:
A key manager (KM) apparatus (Fig. 4; Alice/elements 106/160/502; ¶0020, “The system includes first and second transmitting/receiving stations…”; i.e., a first transmitting/receiving station is interpreted as a key manager (KM) apparatus, which includes interfaced elements coupled elements 106, 160, and 502 - see ¶0047 & ¶0048) comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured to:
perform inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication by exchanging authentication information bidirectionally (¶0020, “The system further includes first and second operatively coupled standards-compliant classical key exchange stations respectively operatively connected to the first and second e/d processors. The classical key exchange stations are adapted to exchange classical keys ci and provide the classical keys to the first and second e/d processors”; ¶0042, “Classical key exchange stations 502 and 504 implement classical key exchange, such as Diffie-Hellman key exchange. Signal 510 represent the exchange of classical keys ci=c0, c1, c2 . . . cn”) with an opposing KM apparatus (Fig. 4, Bob/elements 110/504; ¶0020, “The system includes first and second transmitting/receiving stations…”; ¶0047, “… station 504 is coupled to e/d processor 110 via communication link (e.g., wire) 520”; i.e., a second transmitting/receiving station coupled to e/d processor 110 is interpreted as an opposing KM apparatus) at a different base from a base where the KM apparatus performing the inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication is installed (Fig. 4 details Bob/elements 110/504 at a different base from Alice/elements 106/160/502), and KM-quantum key distribution (QKD) connection authentication by exchanging authentication information bidirectionally with an opposing QKD apparatus (Fig. 4, element 164; ¶0048, “Likewise, quantum keys qi=q0, q1, q2 . . . qn are exchanged between QKD stations 160 and 164 over quantum channel 156 via signal 178 using any one of a number of known quantum cryptographic methods. In an example embodiment, a block B of secure bits is exchanged”) that is distinct from the KM apparatus and the opposing KM apparatus (Fig. 4 details element 164 being distinct from Alice/elements 106/160/502 and Bob/elements 110/504); and
enable a KM function in a case where the inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication is successful and the KM-QKD connection authentication is successful (¶0049, “In each e/d processor 106 and 110, the classical keys ci and the quantum keys qi are XOR-ed, i.e., ci XOR qi to create keys ki, e.g., k0=c0 XOR q0, k1=c1 XOR q1, k2=c2 XOR q2, . . . kn=cn XOR qn. Keys ki are referred to herein as the "session keys.”).
Regarding Claim 5:
The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the KM function includes at least one of a function of executing a KM protocol (¶0049, “… create keys ki, e.g., k0=c0 XOR q0, k1=c1 XOR q1, k2=c2 XOR q2, . . . kn=cn XOR qn. Keys ki are referred to herein as the "session keys.”), a function of storing a cryptographic key received from the opposing QKD apparatus, and a function of executing key relaying with the opposing KM apparatus.
Regarding Claim 8:
A quantum key distribution (QKD) system (Fig. 4, element 500) comprising:
a plurality of QKD apparatuses (Fig. 4, elements 160 and 164); and
a plurality of key manager (KM) apparatuses that are distinct from the plurality of QKD apparatuses (Fig. 4, Alice/elements 106/502 and Bob/elements 110/504 being distinct from respective QKD elements 160 and 164), wherein each of the plurality of KM apparatuses includes one or more hardware processors configured to:
perform inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication by exchanging authentication information bidirectionally (¶0020, “The system further includes first and second operatively coupled standards-compliant classical key exchange stations respectively operatively connected to the first and second e/d processors. The classical key exchange stations are adapted to exchange classical keys ci and provide the classical keys to the first and second e/d processors”; ¶0042, “Classical key exchange stations 502 and 504 implement classical key exchange, such as Diffie-Hellman key exchange. Signal 510 represent the exchange of classical keys ci=c0, c1, c2 . . . cn”) with an opposing KM apparatus (Fig. 4, Bob/elements 110/504; ¶0020, “The system includes first and second transmitting/receiving stations…”; ¶0047, “… station 504 is coupled to e/d processor 110 via communication link (e.g., wire) 520”; i.e., a second transmitting/receiving station coupled to e/d processor 110 is interpreted as an opposing KM apparatus) at a different base from a base where the KM apparatus performing the inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication is installed (Fig. 4 details Bob/elements 110/504 at a different base from Alice/elements 106/160/502), and KM-QKD connection authentication by exchanging authentication information bidirectionally with an opposing QKD apparatus (Fig. 4, element 164; ¶0048, “Likewise, quantum keys qi=q0, q1, q2 . . . qn are exchanged between QKD stations 160 and 164 over quantum channel 156 via signal 178 using any one of a number of known quantum cryptographic methods. In an example embodiment, a block B of secure bits is exchanged”) that is distinct from the KM apparatus and the opposing KM apparatus (Fig. 4 details element 164 being distinct from Alice/elements 106/160/502 and Bob/elements 110/504); and
enable a KM function in a case where the inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication is successful and the KM-QKD connection authentication is successful (¶0049, “In each e/d processor 106 and 110, the classical keys ci and the quantum keys qi are XOR-ed, i.e., ci XOR qi to create keys ki, e.g., k0=c0 XOR q0, k1=c1 XOR q1, k2=c2 XOR q2, . . . kn=cn XOR qn. Keys ki are referred to herein as the "session keys.”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10:
Key management start control method claim 9 and computer program product claim 10 each correspond to apparatus claim 1, and contain no further limitations. Therefore claims 9 and 10 are each rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Berzanskis” (US 2005/0063547) in view of “Burnett” (US 2023/0254134).
Regarding Claim 2:
Berzanskis teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface (¶0015, “Alice is connected to e/d processor 106 via Ethernet section 116”), …
Berzanskis does not disclose:
… 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 KM apparatus-management system connection authentication indicating authentication processing with the management system, in a case where the inter-KM-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 KM function in a case where validity of the KM apparatus and validity of the management system by the KM apparatus-management system connection authentication are mutually verified.
Burnett teaches:
… 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 (Fig. 1, elements 116-1, 116-2, …, 116-K), a request for KM apparatus-management system connection authentication indicating authentication processing with the management system (Fig. 6, step 810), in a case where the inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication is successful and the KM-QKD connection authentication is successful (Fig. 6, step 805 occurs prior to step 810), and
the one or more hardware processors are configured to enable the KM function in a case where validity of the KM apparatus and validity of the management system by the KM apparatus-management system connection authentication are mutually verified (Fig. 6, steps 820 and 830).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Berzanskis’ encryption system by enhancing Berzanskis’ system to include a management system that can mutually verify key manager apparatus before deriving shared keys, as taught by Burnett, in order to prevent the shared key from being derived by an unauthorized third party.
The motivation is to prevent an unauthorized third party from obtaining a shared key between two systems by incorporating a trusted verifying party which can authenticate keys prior to generating a shared final key between the systems (Burnett, ¶0021; ¶0022).
Regarding Claim 3:
Berzanskis teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface (¶0015, “Alice is connected to e/d processor 106 via Ethernet section 116”), …
Berzanskis does not disclose:
… 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 KM apparatus-management system connection authentication indicating authentication processing with the management system, and
the one or more hardware processors are configured to perform the inter-KM- apparatus connection authentication and the KM-QKD connection authentication, in a case where the KM apparatus-management system connection authentication is successful.
Burnett teaches:
… 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 (Fig. 1), a request for KM apparatus-management system connection authentication indicating authentication processing with the management system (¶0027, “The key updater 128 determines a set of the verifying parties 116 needed to authenticate the mutually distilled key, wherein each verifying party 116 of the set of verifying parties 116 operates on the network 104 … During each iteration of the KET, the key updater 128 of Alice 108 and Bob 112 communicates with a key authenticator 142 executing on a corresponding verifying party 116”), and
the one or more hardware processors are configured to perform the inter-KM-apparatus connection authentication and the KM-QKD connection authentication (¶0033; ¶0034; ¶0035), in a case where the KM apparatus-management system connection authentication is successful (¶0031, “At 430, the key authenticator of Charlie compares the first hash of the mutually distilled key with the second hash of the mutually distilled key. If the first hash of the mutually distilled key is equal to the second hash of the mutually distilled key, the KET continues”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Berzanskis’ system by enhancing Berzanskis’ system to include a management system that can mutually verify key manager apparatus before deriving shared keys, as taught by Burnett, in order to prevent the shared key from being derived by an unauthorized third party.
The motivation is to prevent an unauthorized third party from obtaining a shared key between two systems by incorporating a trusted verifying party which can authenticate keys prior to generating a shared final key between the systems (Burnett, ¶0021; ¶0022).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Berzanskis” (US 2005/0063547) in view of “Jacobs” (US 2013/0315395).
Regarding Claim 4:
Berzanskis teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, …
Berzanskis does not disclose:
… wherein the KM-QKD connection authentication includes verifying whether or not a QKD apparatus connected to the opposing KM apparatus and the QKD apparatus that has an inter-QKD-apparatus connection to the opposing QKD apparatus are identical.
Jacobs teaches:
… wherein the KM-QKD connection authentication includes verifying whether or not a QKD apparatus connected to the opposing KM apparatus and the QKD apparatus that has an inter-QKD-apparatus connection to the opposing QKD apparatus are identical (¶0018, “To check for the presence of eavesdropping, Alice and Bob compare a certain subset of their remaining bit strings. If a third party has gained any information about the photons' polarization, this introduces errors in Bobs' measurements. If more than p bits differ, Alice and Bob abort the key and try again, possibly with a different quantum channel, as the security of the key cannot be guaranteed”; ¶0020, “The scheme relies on two properties of entanglement. First, the entangled states are perfectly correlated in the sense that if Alice and Bob both measure whether their particles have vertical or horizontal polarizations, they always get the same answer with 100% probability”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Berzanskis’ encryption system by enhancing Berzanskis’ system to provide validation on whether exchanged information between quantum devices are identical, as taught by Jacobs, in order to confirm whether an eavesdropper exists on a quantum channel between the devices.
The motivation is to provide protection against eavesdropping by ensuring that quantum information used to generate quantum keys is identical between two quantum devices. This enhances the security of the quantum keys by eliminating the probability of an unauthorized third party being present on a quantum channel (Jacobs, ¶0018).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the subject matter recited within claims 6 and 7. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 6 and 7 is deemed allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights