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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on February 01, 2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on February 01, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 01, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application 18/430099 on February 01, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the acronym Tor but is has not been defined in the claim. The Onion Router (Tor) is defined in the applicant provided specification.
Claims 9, and 16 have similar issues and appropriate correction is requested.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 6,266,704 Bl/ or “Reed” hereinafter) in view of Braun et al. (EP4187840A1 / or “Braun” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses “A method comprising” (Col 3: lines 14-21, a method of bi-directional anonymous connections through the communication network is disclosed):
“generating, by a network device, a message for a corresponding node of a network to establish a [quantum key], wherein the network includes a plurality of nodes and a [quantum] relay]” (Fig. 2: an Initiator Machine 121 i.e., a “network device” and a Responder Machine 122 i.e., a “corresponding node”; and Col 4: lines 40-51, the Initiator Machine 121 i.e., the “network device” makes a request to a proxy i.e., a “relay” to establish a virtual circuit through an onion router to the Responder Machine 122 i.e., the “corresponding node” with an encryption of the identity of the next onion router in the pathway and encryption material );
“sending, by the network device, the message over a path of the network to the corresponding node” (Fig. 2: an Initiator Machine 121 i.e., a “network device” and a Responder Machine 122 i.e., a “corresponding node” creates virtual circuit; and Col 7: lines 20-31: provides data through the virtual circuit),
“wherein the message includes identities of the network device and one or more nodes in the path encrypted with a corresponding [quantum] key and a sender of the message indicated as an adjacent node of the corresponding node to maintain secrecy of the identities” (Col 4: lines 2-63, the onion routers are identified; and Col 5: lines 15-29: encryption is done by each onion router in the route and identifier of responders are identified; and Claim 1);
But Reed fails to specially disclose a quantum network with a quantum relay establishing a quantum key between a sender and a receiver.
However, Orcutt discloses “and establishing, by the network device, the quantum key with the corresponding node via the quantum relay based on a response to the message” (Para 0021: using a Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) quantum key is established as a common key between a sender a receiver; and Fig. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a quantum network with a quantum relay establishing a quantum key between a sender and a receiver of Braun to the Onion Routing Network for Securely Moving Data Through Communication Networks of Reed to establish a common quantum key using shared quantum states via optical transport network (OTN) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to perform symmetrical encryption between the sender and the receiver using the common quantum key (Para 0021; and Para 0004).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Reed in view of Braun disclose “wherein the network includes an anonymous communication network” (Reed, Col 3: lines 14-21: a method of bi-directional anonymous connections through the communication network is disclosed)
“and the quantum key is established via a quantum key distribution protocol” (Braun, Para 0021: using a Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) quantum key is established as a common key between a sender a receiver; and Fig. 2 and 3).
(Based on 112 rejection above) Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Reed discloses “wherein the anonymous communication network includes a Tor network” (Reed, Abstract: the Onion routers (Tor) are utilized in the communication network).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Reed in view of Braun disclose “further comprising: receiving, by the network device, the response to the message from the corresponding node, wherein the response is relayed through the one or more nodes that each decrypt an encrypted identity of a next node using the corresponding [quantum key] to send the response along the path to the network device” (Col 4: lines 2-63, the onion routers are identified; and Col 5: lines 15-29: encryption is done by each onion router in the route and identifier of responders are identified; and Claim 1), and
Braun discloses use of Quantum keys (Braun, Para 0021: using a Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) quantum key is established as a common key between a sender a receiver; and Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Reed in view of Braun disclose “wherein the path includes an entry node, a middle node, and an exit node each associated with a corresponding [quantum] key for decryption of an encrypted identity to relay the response along the path to the network device” (Fig. 2: an Initiator Machine 121 i.e., an “entry node” and a Responder Machine 122 i.e., an “exit node” creates virtual circuit; and Col 7: lines 20-31: provides data through the virtual circuit using onion router’s i.e., a “middle node”; and Reed: Col 5: lines 15-29: encryption is done by each onion router in the route and identifier of responders are identified; and Claim 1), and
Braun discloses use of Quantum keys (Braun, Para 0021: using a Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) quantum key is established as a common key between a sender a receiver; and Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 5, Reed in view of Braun disclose “further comprising: sending, by the network device, the message to the middle node, wherein the message includes an identity of the network device encrypted with a corresponding [quantum] key for the entry node and a sender of the message indicated as the entry node; and establishing, by the network device, the [quantum] key with the middle node via the [quantum] relay based on the response to the message” (Reed, Fig. 2: an Initiator Machine 121 i.e., an “entry node” and a Responder Machine 122 i.e., an “exit node” creates virtual circuit; and Col 7: lines 20-31: provides data through the virtual circuit using onion router’s i.e., a “middle node”; and Reed: Col 5: lines 15-29: encryption is done by each onion router in the route and identifier of responders are identified; and Claim 1. Note: encryption between nodes and the routers are performed using public key (see also, Reed: Col 9: lines 13-20 )), and
Braun discloses use of Quantum keys (Braun, Para 0021: using a Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) quantum key is established as a common key between a sender a receiver; and Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 5, Reed in view of Braun disclose “further comprising: sending, by the network device, the message to the exit node, wherein the message includes an identity of the network device encrypted with a corresponding [quantum] key for the entry node, an identity of the entry node encrypted with a corresponding [quantum] key for the middle node, and a sender of the message indicated as the middle node; and establishing, by the network device, the [quantum] key with the exit node via the [quantum] relay based on the response to the message” (Reed, Fig. 2: an Initiator Machine 121 i.e., an “entry node” and a Responder Machine 122 i.e., an “exit node” creates virtual circuit; and Col 7: lines 20-31: provides data through the virtual circuit using onion router’s i.e., a “middle node”; and Reed: Col 5: lines 15-29: encryption is done by each onion router in the route and identifier of responders are identified; and Claim 1. Note: encryption between nodes and the routers are performed using public key (see also, Reed: Col 9: lines 13-20 )), and
Braun discloses use of Quantum keys (Braun, Para 0021: using a Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) quantum key is established as a common key between a sender a receiver; and Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 2 and 3. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 2 and 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 6. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to an apparatus corresponding to the method recited in claim 7. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to computer readable storage media corresponding to the method recited in claim 7. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Obadia et al. (US 20210083865 A1) discloses established a quantum key using Quantum Key Distribution (Para 0064) and using the key to encryption messages in a Tor network (Para 0110).
Evans et al. (US 9,525,665 Bl) discloses “…method for obscuring network services may include (1) identifying a local network comprising at least one client and at least one host, where the host provides a service that is not bound to any mutable address on the local network and the client is expected to send messages to the service, (2) provisioning the client with a proxy that intercepts the messages directed to the service by the client, identifies the host that provides the service, and adds at least one layer of encryption to the messages, (3) configuring the proxy to route the messages through an onion routing network within the local network that comprises at least one onion routing node, and ( 4) configuring the onion routing network to remove the at least one layer of encryption from the messages before forwarding the messages.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431