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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 3/11/2026 Claims 1, 14, and 21 have been amended. Claims 6 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 26 and 27 are newly added. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 14-18, and 20-27 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11 of Remarks, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 14-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Applicant’s further arguments concerning the previous rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) were not found persuasive, and thus the rejection is being sustained as below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 14 was previously amended to recite similar language presented in respective claims 1 and 21 (i.e., “generate a QKD key prior to a time period associated with the QKD key request rate”, “cache the QKD key prior to the time period expiring”, and “transmit, based on receive the other QKD key request, the QKD key”), however claim 14 is directed towards “a secure application entity (SAE)” of a network device performing these functions, rather than the entire network device itself. Thus, the previously amended functionality introduced to claim 14 appears to be performed solely by “a key management entity (KME)”, and not only by claim 14’s SAE, and therefore recites subject matter that is not described in the originally filed disclosure. For example, Figs. 2 and 4 each detail a “device” at a respective location, having a respective KME and SAE, where the KME is described as being used to perform each of the above recited functions. The examiner suggests Applicant amend claim 14 to be similar in scope to claim 21, or to amend claim 14’s “network device” to include both the aforementioned SAE and KME performing functions in a manner that is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 14-18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1 recites the limitations "the other proposed key request rate" in line 10, “the other proposed key request” in line 13, “the other proposed key request rate” in line 13, and “the other key request” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the other proposed key request rate” in line 13, “the proposed key request rate” in lines 13-14, “the other proposed key request” in lines 15-16, “the other proposed key request rate” in line 16, “the proposed key request rate” in line 17, and “the other QKD key request” in line 1 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Additionally, the amendments introduced for claim 14 are further considered indefinite as each of the respectively amended “key request” and “key request rate” limitations is missing the associated “QKD” label, and thus it’s unclear as these limitations are intended to be associated with keys separate from the “QKD key request” and “QKD key request rate”.
Claim 21 recites the limitations “the other proposed key request rate” in line 10, “the proposed key request rate” in lines 10-11, “the other proposed key request” in lines 12-13, “the other proposed key request rate” in line 13, and “the other key request” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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