DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 10/23/23. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6,14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6,14 and 20 recite the term "and/or", which is selective language, the examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claims should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9 and 17:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 1 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) , claim 9 recites an apparatus (i.e., a “machine”) and claim 17 recites a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., an article of manufacture) which are statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
Claim 1 recites one or more limitations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper: “ determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; inferring the value based at least in part on the one or more characteristics of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; predicting a state of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles”
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “receiving a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; encoding an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmitting the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link ” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “receiving a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; encoding an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmitting the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link” is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) and 2106.07(a)III). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites additional element of “wherein determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles comprises performing a weak measurement in a first degree of freedom and utilizing the result of the weak measurement to determine a characteristic of a second degree of freedom, and wherein the first degree of freedom correlates with the second degree of freedom” which is a mental step that can be performed in human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 2 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 3 recites additional element of “recording a timestamp associated with state information of the subset of intercepted quantum particles” which is a mental step that can be performed in human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 3 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 4 recites additional element of “counting the subset of intercepted quantum particles; recording a statistical distribution of the subset of intercepted quantum particles, and transmitting optical data reflecting the statistical distribution of the subset of intercepted quantum particles” which is a mental step that can be performed in human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 4 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites additional element of “wherein the plurality of quantum particles are transmitted on the quantum interconnect link between a transmitter and a receiver, and wherein: receiving the subset of intercepted quantum particles of the plurality of quantum particles comprises receiving, via an interceptor the subset of intercepted quantum particles such that a remaining portion of the plurality of quantum particles bypass the interceptor; and transmitting the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link comprises combining the output subset of quantum particles with the remaining portion of the plurality of quantum particles” which are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) and 2106.07(a)III). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 5 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 6 recites additional element of “wherein the one or more degrees of freedom comprise one or more of: polarization, time-of-arrival, spatial displacement, relative phase, orbital angular momentum, spatial modes, energy/frequency, quantized quadratures, and/or spin” which is simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) and 2106.07(a)III). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 6 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 7 recites additional element of “ wherein the inferred value represents one or more qudits” which is a mental step that can be performed in human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 7 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 8 recites additional element of “wherein determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles comprises: identifying one or more measured degrees of freedom; and determining the characteristic of the one or more measured degrees of freedom” which is a mental step that can be performed in human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 8 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 9:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
Claim 9 recites one or more limitations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper: “ determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; inferring the value based at least in part on the one or more characteristics of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; predicting a state of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles”
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 9 recites additional elements of “receiving a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; encoding an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmitting the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link ” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “a quantum measurement device” and “digital conversion circuitry” which is recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “receiving a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; encoding an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmitting the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link” is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) and 2106.07(a)III). The additional element of “a quantum measurement device” and “digital conversion circuitry” are at beast equivalent of adding the word “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 9 therefore is ineligible.
Claims 10-16 recite similar features of claims 2-8 and therefore rejected for the same rationale as indicates in the above rejection of claims 2-8 respectively.
Claim 17:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
Claim 17 recites one or more limitations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help of a pen and paper: “determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; inferring the value based at least in part on the one or more characteristics of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; predicting a state of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles”
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 17 recites additional elements of “receive a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; encode an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmit the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link ” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” which is recited at the very high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “receive a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; encode an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmit the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link” is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) and 2106.07(a)III). The additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium ” is at beast equivalent of adding the word “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 17 therefore is ineligible.
Claims 18-20 recite similar features of claims 4-6 and therefore rejected for the same rationale as indicates in the above rejection of claims 4-6 respectively.
Examiner notes
In the following rejection, the bold text of the claim signifies the portion or limitation that the prior art teaches and the text within the square brackets [] signifies the portion or limitation that the prior art fails to expressly teach.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13 and 19 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. Although these claims are allowable over prior art, all other rejections and/or objections (if any) such as 101/112/claim objection must be overcome before the claims are allowed.
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.
Claims 1-2,6-10 ,14-16,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2025/0023720 A1, hereinafter “Lim”) and further in view of DRESSEL et al., "Colloquium: Understanding quantum weak values: Basics and applications," Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(1):307, (2014).(Cited on applicant’s IDS )
As to claim 1, Lim teaches a method for eavesdropping a value transmitted on a quantum interconnect link, the method comprising: receiving a subset of intercepted quantum particles of a plurality of quantum particles transmitted on the quantum interconnect link; (Lim par [0141] teaches intercepted photons )
[determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles];
inferring the value [ based at least in part on the one or more characteristics of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles] ; (Lim par [0141] teaches the attacker can learn the encoded bit values without disturbing the quantum states)
predicting a state of the one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles; encoding an output subset of quantum particles with characteristics based at least in part on the predicted state; and transmitting the output subset of quantum particles on the quantum interconnect link. (Lim par [0141] teaches the attacker performs intercept-resend attack near to the QKD transmitter and resend photons with a higher mean photon number)
Lim fails to expressly teach [determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles].
However, teaches Dressel determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles.(Dressel section IV teaches “we show how the complex character of the weak value may be used to directly determine a quantum state)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Lim and Dressel to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to encourage new methods for the direct measurement of quantum states.(Dressel section I, page 308)
As to claim 2, Lim and Dressel teach the method of Claim 1, wherein determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles comprises performing a weak measurement in a first degree of freedom and utilizing the result of the weak measurement to determine a characteristic of a second degree of freedom, and wherein the first degree of freedom correlates with the second degree of freedom. (Dressel section IV, page 313 teaches we showed earlier how to isolate and measure both the real and imaginary parts of this polarization weak value. This, we can completely determine the state after the polarization weak value has been measured using the special post selection )
As to claim 6, Lim and Dressel teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more degrees of freedom comprise one or more of: polarization, time-of-arrival, spatial displacement, relative phase, orbital angular momentum, spatial modes, energy/frequency, quantized quadratures, and/or spin. (Lim par [003] teaches the qubits which are usually encoded onto the polarization or phase of photons are then transmitted over a quantum channel)
As to claim 7, Lim and Dressel teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the inferred value represents one or more qudits. (Lim par [0003] teaches encoding random bits onto qubits)
As to claim 8, Lim and Dressel teach the method of Claim 1, wherein determining one or more characteristics of one or more degrees of freedom of the subset of intercepted quantum particles comprises: identifying one or more measured degrees of freedom; and determining the characteristic of the one or more measured degrees of freedom.(Dressel section I, page 307 , teaches a large weak value can help to amply a detector signal and enable sensitive estimation of unknown small evolution parameters such as beam deflection, frequency shift, phase shift, angular shifts and others)
Claims 9-10 and 14-16 merely recite an apparatus to perform the method of claims 1-2 and 6-8 respectively. Accordingly, Lim and Dressel teach every limitation of claims 9-10 and 14-16 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-2 and 6-8 respectively.
Claims 17 and 20 merely recite a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that, when executed, cause the computer program product to perform the method of claims 1 and 6 respectively. Accordingly, Lim and Dressel teach every limitation of claims 17 and 20 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1 and 6 respectively.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim , Dressel and further in view of Vacon et al. (US Patent Application Publication 11,411,658 B1, hereinafter “ Vacon”)
As to claim 3, Lim and Dressel teach the method of Claim 1 but fail to teach further comprising recording a timestamp associated with state information of the subset of intercepted quantum particles.
However, Vacon teaches recording a timestamp associated with state information.(Vacon col 6, lines 55-65 teaches the first and second ordered list of events can include an ordered list of arrival times of single photons, ordered list of polarization measurement , wave lengths or spatial position measurements)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Lim and Dressel with the teaching of Vacon to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to identify related elements.(Vacon col 7, lines 30-35)
As to claim 11, see the above rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4,12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim , Dressel and further in view of Mizutani.(US Patent Application Publication 2023/0010795 A1, hereinafter “Mizutani”)
As to claim 4, Lim and Dressel teach the method of Claim 1 but tail to expressly teach further comprising: counting the subset of intercepted quantum particles; recording a statistical distribution of the subset of intercepted quantum particles, and transmitting optical data reflecting the statistical distribution of the subset of intercepted quantum particles.
However, Mizutani teaches counting the subset of intercepted quantum particles; recording a statistical distribution of the subset of intercepted quantum particles, and transmitting optical data reflecting the statistical distribution of the subset of intercepted quantum particles. (Mizutani par [0034] teaches the light source measurement apparatus measures light pulses emitted by the transmission apparatus, estimates number of photons statistics regarding zero, one , two and three photons in the light pulses as a physical characteristic and outputs the number of photon statistics to the transmission apparatus)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Lim and Dressel with the teaching of Mizutani to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to realize quantum key distribution without requiring a physical characteristic of light emitted by the transmission apparatus.(Mizutani par [0014])
As to claims 12 and 18, see the above rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zubairy et al. US Patent 8,350,587 discloses a method for restoring a state of a qubit transformed by a weak measurement (Zubairy’s abstract). Troupe. US Patent 9,306,739 is directed to quantum key distribution protocol process. Troupe col 4, lines 59-67 teaches weak measurements enable sender and receiver to directly detect any intervening disturbance by eavesdropper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights