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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 14 July 2026, in response to the Office Action mailed 15 April 2026. The applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered, with the results that follow.
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, according to the description given in the specification, in paragraph [0084], the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” covers transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory. To overcome this rejection, applicant should insert --non-transitory-- before “computer readable storage medium.” Such an amendment is not considered new matter. See the "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media" memo dated January 26, 2010 (OG Cite: 1351 OG 212; OG Date: 23 Feb 2010).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, according to the description given in the specification, in paragraph [0084], the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” covers transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory. To overcome this rejection, applicant should insert --non-transitory-- before “computer readable storage medium.” Such an amendment is not considered new matter. See the "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media" memo dated January 26, 2010 (OG Cite: 1351 OG 212; OG Date: 23 Feb 2010).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12-14, 17-19, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berend (US 2022/0231844).
As per claim 1, Berend teaches a system comprising:
a first quantum state measurement device configured to generate a sender binary value in response to measuring a first qubit [a system utilizing a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.) which begins with key generation and encryption steps (paras. 0021-23, 0243-249; figs. 2, 12; etc.) including measuring qubit(s) (paras. 0014-16, 0065-72, 0150, etc.)];
a second quantum state measurement device configured to generate a receiver binary value in response to measuring a second qubit that is entangled with the first qubit [the receiver step includes decryption at the receiving device(s) (paras. 0021-23, 0243-249; figs. 2, 12; etc.) including measuring qubits entangled with the qubits of the sender (paras. 0038, 0042, 0078, 0084-86; fig. 12; etc.)];
a sender device configured to:
combine the sender binary value and a data bit in an XOR gate to generate a securely transmittable value [the measured qubit and message data are combined in an XOR gate (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.)]; and
transmit the securely transmittable value to a receiver device [the measured qubit and message data are combined in an XOR gate and transmitted to a receiver(s) (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.)]; and
the receiver device is configured to combine the receiver binary value and the securely transmittable value in an XNOR gate to generate the data bit [the receiver applies a NOT gate to the received qubit data and XOR with the message bits (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.); where NOT and XOR combined is a XNOR gate].
As per claim 2, Berend teaches wherein the sender binary value is opposite the receiver binary value [the measured value of the entangled qubit at the receiver is opposite of the qubit of the sender (paras. 0006-7, etc.)].
As per claim 3, Berend teaches wherein the sender binary value has a random probabilistic distribution between 0 and 1 [the generation produces a probability distribution randomly selected between 0 and 1 (paras. 0116, 0147-149, 0162, etc.)].
As per claim 4, Berend teaches wherein the securely transmittable value does not contain the data bit [the message data is passed without the bits themselves being revealed (paras. 0238-241, etc.)].
As per claim 6, Berend teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a sender binary value by measuring a first qubit associated with a sender device, wherein the first qubit is entangled with a second qubit associated with a receiver device [a system utilizing a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.) which begins with key generation and encryption steps (paras. 0021-23, 0243-249; figs. 2, 12; etc.) including measuring qubits entangled between sender/receivers (paras. 0038, 0042, 0078, 0084-86; fig. 12; etc.)]; and
generating a securely transmittable value by providing the sender binary value and a data bit to an XOR gate [the measured qubit and message data are combined in an XOR gate (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.) to produce a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.)], wherein the data bit is configured to be derived by the receiver device by supplying the securely transmittable value and a receiver binary value from the second qubit to an XNOR gate [the receiver applies a NOT gate to the received qubit data and XOR with the message bits (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.); where NOT and XOR combined is a XNOR gate].
As per claim 7, Berend teaches transmitting the securely transmittable value to the receiver device via a network [a system utilizing a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.)].
As pe claim 8, see the rejection of claim 2, above.
As per claim 12, see the rejection of claim 6, above, wherein Berend also teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium, and program instructions stored on the readable storage medium, the program instructions comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform [the method] [the invention can be implemented via processors and connected memories across multiple remote devices, where the processors execute operations from the memory to perform computations on data (para. 0017, etc.)].
As per claim 13, see the rejection of claim 7, above.
As per claim 14, see the rejection of claim 8, above.
As per claim 17, Berend teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a receiver device, a securely transmittable value from a sender device associated with a first qubit [a system utilizing a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.) which begins with key generation and encryption steps (paras. 0021-23, 0243-249; figs. 2, 12; etc.) including measuring qubit(s) (paras. 0014-16, 0065-72, 0150, etc.)], wherein the securely transmittable value is configured to securely convey a data bit from the sender device to the receiver device [a system utilizing a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.)];
generating a receiver binary value by measuring a second qubit that is entangled with the first qubit [the receiver step includes decryption (paras. 0021-23, 0243-249; figs. 2, 12; etc.) including measuring qubits entangled with the qubits of the sender (paras. 0038, 0042, 0078, 0084-86; fig. 12; etc.)]; and
generating the data bit by supplying the securely transmittable value and the receiver binary value to an XNOR gate [the receiver applies a NOT gate to the received qubit data and XOR with the message bits (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.); where NOT and XOR combined is a XNOR gate].
As per claim 18, see the rejection of claim 2, above.
As per claim 19, Berend teaches wherein the securely transmittable value is generated by supplying the sender binary value and the data bit to an XOR gate [the measured qubit and message data are combined in an XOR gate (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.)].
As per claim 22, see the rejection of claim 17, above, wherein Berend also teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium, and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage medium, the program instructions comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform [the method] [the invention can be implemented via processors and connected memories across multiple remote devices, where the processors execute operations from the memory to perform computations on data (para. 0017, etc.)].
As per claim 23, see the rejection of claim 18, above.
As per claim 24, see the rejection of claim 19, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berend (US 2022/0231844), in view of Chou et al. (Quantum entanglement and non-locality based secure computation for future communication, 2011, pgs. 69-79 – cited in an IDS), and further in view of Shih (US 2018/0267539).
As per claim 5, Berend teaches the system of claim 1, as described above.
While Berend teaches decrypting the data at receiver devices (see above), it has not been relied upon for teaching a validation repository accessible by the sender device and the receiver device, wherein the validation repository stores validation qubit identifiers and a subset of sender binary values, and wherein the validation repository is stored on a blockchain network; and wherein the receiver device is configured to compare the subset of sender binary values to receiver binary values of a subset of a plurality of receiver qubits with positions corresponding to the validation qubit identifiers to verify an integrity of a communication channel between the sender device and the receiver device.
Chou a validation repository accessible by the sender device and the receiver device, wherein the validation repository stores validation qubit identifiers and a subset of sender binary values [the sending and receiving devices can perform validation by randomly selecting message qubits, decrypting their own halves, and checking by measuring both parts from Ds and a chosen part from D1-s and afterward exchanging keys bit by bit, then decrypting remaining parts (pg. 76, section 6.2; etc.); where the stored qubit data parts are the subsets being checked, and storing them is a repository accessible by the sender and receiver]; and
wherein the receiver device is configured to compare the subset of sender binary values to receiver binary values of a subset of a plurality of receiver qubits with positions corresponding to the validation qubit identifiers to verify an integrity of a communication channel between the sender device and the receiver device [the sending and receiving devices can perform validation by randomly selecting message qubits, decrypting their own halves, and checking by measuring both parts from Ds and a chosen part from D1-s and afterward exchanging keys bit by bit, then decrypting remaining parts (pg. 76, section 6.2; etc.); where the stored qubit data parts are the subsets being checked, and storing them is a repository accessible by the sender and receiver].
Berend and Chou are analogous art, as they are within the same field of endeavor, namely quantum computation and transmission of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the quantum data validation storage and step taught by Chou, in the quantum secure transmission system taught by Berend.
Chou provides motivation as [the encryption and validation ensures that the transmission is secure and that there is no way for cheating by devices which may receive the data (pg. 78, section 6.3; etc.)].
Shih teaches wherein the validation repository is stored on a blockchain network [the quantum annealing resources are connected to a blockchain network for validation (paras. 0024, 0054-55, etc.)].
Berend/Chou and Shih are analogous art, as they are within the same field of endeavor, namely quantum computation and transmission of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store qubit validation data on a blockchain network, as taught by Shih, for the validation qubit data validation storage of the system of Berend/Chou.
Shih provides motivation as [the blockchain network is coming into the forefront as a way of managing transactional resources over distributive networks, closing the gap where human trust and risk as well as where risks associated with single device operation may fall short (para. 0004, etc.) and can drive autonomous devices in different radii and/or vectors of space and in time (para. 0006, etc.)].
As per claim 9, Berend/Chou/Shih teaches publishing, by the sender device, validation qubit identifiers and a subset of sender binary values to a validation repository stored on a blockchain network [the sending and receiving devices can perform validation by randomly selecting message qubits, decrypting their own halves, and checking by measuring both parts from Ds and a chosen part from D1-s and afterward exchanging keys bit by bit, then decrypting remaining parts (Chou: pg. 76, section 6.2; etc.), where the quantum annealing resources are connected to a blockchain network for validation (Shih: paras. 0024, 0054-55, etc.); and the exchange/sharing and acknowledgement is the publishing, by the sender device].
Examiner’s Note: the reasoning and motivation for the combination is the same as provided, above, in the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 10, Berend/Chou teaches wherein the receiver device is configured to determine an integrity of a communication channel between the sender device and the receiver device based on comparing the subset of sender binary values to receiver binary values of a plurality of receiver qubits corresponding to the validation qubit identifiers [the sending and receiving devices can perform validation by randomly selecting message qubits, decrypting their own halves, and checking by measuring both parts from Ds and a chosen part from D1-s and afterward exchanging keys bit by bit, then decrypting remaining parts (Chou: pg. 76, section 6.2; etc.)].
As per claim 15, see the rejection of claim 9, above.
As per claim 16, see the rejection of claim 10, above.
As per claim 20, see the rejection of claim 5, above.
As per claim 25, see the rejection of claim 20, above.
Claim(s) 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berend (US 2022/0231844) in view of Deo (US 2021/0105331).
As per claim 11, Berend teaches wherein the computer-implemented method is executed by the sender device based on secure data transmission code downloaded to the sender device from a remote data processing system [the invention can be implemented via processors and connected memories across multiple remote devices, where the processors execute operations from the memory to perform computations on data (para. 0017, etc.), utilizing a secure communication channel between devices (paras. 0078-84, etc.)],
While Berend teaches securing transmission of data/messages between devices and remote processing (see above), it has not been relied upon for teaching wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: metering usage of the secure data transmission code based on an amount of data transmitted using the secure data transmission code; and generating an invoice based on metering the usage of the secure data transmission code.
Deo teaches wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises:
metering usage of the secure data transmission code based on an amount of data transmitted using the secure data transmission code; and
generating an invoice based on metering the usage of the secure data transmission code [user data transmission can be metered as they are sent to an on-premises network, for which an invoice can be generated (paras. 0036, 0048, etc.)].
Berend and Deo are analogous art, as they are within the same field of endeavor, namely secure data transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include metering the secure data transmission and providing an invoice based upon the data transmitted, as taught by Shih, for the secure data transmission provided by the system taught by Berend.
Because both Berend and Deo teach systems for secure data transmission, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include metering the secure data transmission and providing an invoice based upon the data transmitted, as taught by Shih, for the secure data transmission provided by the system taught by Berend, to achieve the predictable result of being able to charge customers for the use of the secure transmission channels created. Deo also provides motivation as [providing an on-premises network with the capability to securely perform cloud services on sensitive information, such as first-party user data, stored locally within the on-premises network (para. 0005, etc.) and enabling companies to perform cloud-based services on third-party data stored within the cloud-based network (para. 0007)].
As per claim 21, see the rejection of claim 11, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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., that the computer readable storage medium is non-transitory) 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). Although the specification mentions transitory signals per se, it does not provide a definition of “computer readable storage medium” that does not include them.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach combining the sender binary value and a data bit in an XOR gate to generate a securely transmittable value or combining the receiver binary value and the securely transmittable value in an XNOR gate to generate the data bit
However, Berend teaches that the measured qubit and message data are combined in an XOR gate (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.) and the receiver applies a NOT gate to the received qubit data and XOR with the message bits (paras. 0100-104; figs. 3-5, 12; etc.); where NOT and XOR combined is a XNOR gate. This is combining a sender binary value and data bit in an XOR gate and combining a receiver binary value and the securely transmittable value in an XNOR gate.
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 14 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5, 15, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments made to those claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shih, which has been relied upon for teaching storing the validation repository data on a blockchain network (see above).
Applicant has also argued examiner’s official notice for the rejections of claims 11 and 21.
However, Deo has been provided as evidence of the prior official notice (as well as the amended claim language), for teaching generating an invoice based on metering the data transmitted/usage of the secure data transmission code (see above).
Conclusion
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i): claims 1-25 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (US 2017/0134100) – discloses quantum information probability transfer including sending/receiving bits using entanglement sets of qubits.
Vacon (US 2022/0114471) – discloses sending classical/binary data between cache nodes using entangled qubits.
Tudorache (Design of an Exchange Protocol for the Quantum Blockchain, Oct 2022, pgs. 1-14) – discloses utilizing quantum properties to improve a blockchain network.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
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 GEORGE GIROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-9769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/GEORGE GIROUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights