DETAILED ACTION
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 in reply to papers filed on 2025-10-02. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 21 is/are independent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19-20 is 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 prior art of record does not disclose an encrypting protocol that uses swap actions on members of the set of recorded responses to produce new verification patterns.
Information Disclosure Statement PTO-1449
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 2024-01-18, 2025-10-02 has/have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Summary of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
The following table summarizes the rejections set forth in detail below of the claims over the prior art.
Claim No.
Foster '066
Foster '066 in view of Lucarelli '748
Foster '066 in view of Official Notice
1
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
2
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
3
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
4
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
5
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
6
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
7
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
8
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
9
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
10
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
11
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
12
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
13
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
14
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
15
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
16
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
17
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
18
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
19
20
21
[Wingdings font/0xFC]
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by U.S. Publication 20190156066 to Foster et al. (hereinafter "Foster '066"). Foster '066 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 1 (independent):
Foster '066 discloses v) repeating steps i)-iv) (creates library of CRPs [Foster '066 ¶ 0066, 0078-0079, 0094-0096])
Foster '066 discloses vi) building-up a verification pattern from said recorded responses (creates library of CRPs [Foster '066 ¶ 0066, 0078-0079, 0094-0096])
Foster '066 discloses vii) comparing said verification pattern with said known quantum correlation signature (authenticates if match exceeds threshold [Foster '066 ¶ 0057, 0066, 0097, 0114-0117, 0146-0147])
Foster '066 discloses viii) authenticating if a similarity threshold between said verification pattern and said known quantum correlation signature is achieved based on said comparing step (authenticates if match exceeds threshold [Foster '066 ¶ 0057, 0066, 0097, 0114-0117, 0146-0147])
The remaining limitations of the claim(s) correspond(s) to features of claim(s) 21 and the claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons detailed with respect to those claims.
Per claim 4 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said known quantum correlation signature is public knowledge (authenticator, library/DB of challenge-response pairs (CRPs), Fractional Hamming Distance (FHD) [Foster '066 ¶ 0065-0066, 0078-0079, 0093-0096, 0111, 0115])
Per claim 6 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses step v) is performed in a public channel (creates library of CRPs [Foster '066 ¶ 0066, 0078-0079, 0094-0096])
Per claim 7 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said quantum correlation signature is based on quantum complementary variables after entangled photons interact with optical chaos (ray-chaotic behavior [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0059, 0063, 0097, 0099-0103])
Per claim 8 (dependent on claim 7):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said optical chaos is provided by physical unclonable function nanostructures of each device of said pair of devices ("unclonable optical micro-cavity authentication devices can [be] leveraged as PUFs" [Foster '066 ¶ 0083, 0087])
Per claim 9 (dependent on claim 8):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 8 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said physical unclonable function nanostructures comprise chaotic light-transmission media ("unclonable optical micro-cavity authentication devices can [be] leveraged as PUFs" [Foster '066 ¶ 0083, 0087]; ray-chaotic behavior [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0059, 0063, 0097, 0099-0103])
Per claim 10 (dependent on claim 7):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said quantum complementary variables are based on photon arrival time and/or carrier frequencies (time domain, frequency domain, intensity [Foster '066 ¶ 0055, 0077, 0084, 0095-0099])
Per claim 11 (dependent on claim 7):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said quantum correlation signature is defined based on intensity correlations of entangled photons in frequencies and/or arrival times (time domain, frequency domain, intensity [Foster '066 ¶ 0055, 0077, 0084, 0095-0099])
Per claim 12 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses the step of continuously transmitting a reference signal to each device of said pair of devices (time domain, frequency domain, intensity [Foster '066 ¶ 0055, 0077, 0084, 0095-0099]; continuous signal [Foster '066 ¶ 0110, 0147)
Per claim 13 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said known quantum correlation signature is based on one or more of joint spectrum intensity, joint temporal intensity or joint spectral temporal intensity ([Foster '066 Figs. 11-12, ¶ 0065, 0070-0072, 0077, 0097, 0099])
Per claim 14 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses the step of selectively maintaining in confidence at least some of said responses from step iii) and/or step iv) for security purposes (generates keys [Foster '066 ¶ 0011, 0053-0055, 0076])
Per claim 15 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses The method of claim 1, wherein said recorded responses are announced publicly in order to accomplish step vi) (authenticator, library/DB of challenge-response pairs (CRPs), Fractional Hamming Distance (FHD) [Foster '066 ¶ 0065-0066, 0078-0079, 0093-0096, 0111, 0115])
Per claim 16 (dependent on claim 15):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses the steps of encoding a confidential message into said recorded responses and decoding said confidential message from said recorded responses (encrypting, decrypting [Foster '066 ¶ 0055, 0092, 0130-0131, 0138, 0134])
Per claim 17 (dependent on claim 16):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 16 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said decoding step is performed on said recorded responses by maximizing similarity with said verification pattern when calculating said verification pattern ([Foster '066 ¶ 0077])
Per claim 18 (dependent on claim 17):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 17 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 discloses said encoding step is performed according to a publicly agreed protocol (encrypting, decrypting [Foster '066 ¶ 0055, 0092, 0130-0131, 0138, 0134])
Per claim 21 (independent):
Foster '066 discloses a system for performing verification ([Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065])
Foster '066 discloses a laser source (erbium-doped fiber amplifier (EDFA) [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065, 0092])
Foster '066 discloses an entangled photon source (Mode Locked Laser (MLL) [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065, 0091-0092])
Foster '066 discloses one or more single photon detectors (A/D, scope, PD [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0067, 0076-0077, 0092-0093])
Foster '066 discloses one or more photonic chaos chips that provide physical one-way functions (cavity [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0059, 0063, 0097, 0099-0103])
Foster '066 discloses one or more photon arrival time measurement devices ( [Foster '066 Fig. 25A, Fig. 25C, ¶ 0141-0143])
Foster '066 discloses one or more photon frequency measurement devices ( [Foster '066 Fig. 25A, Fig. 25C, ¶ 0141-0143])
Foster '066 discloses a public database of correlation measurement results (authenticator, library/DB of challenge-response pairs (CRPs), Fractional Hamming Distance (FHD) [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0054, 0065-0066, 0093-0094, 0111, 0115])
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 that 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(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foster '066 in view of U.S. Publication 20200119748 to Lucarelli (hereinafter "Lucarelli '748"). Lucarelli '748 is prior art to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 does not disclose the step of validating entanglement of said plurality of entangled photons
Further:
Lucarelli '748 discloses the step of validating entanglement of said plurality of entangled photons (verifies entanglement [Lucarelli '748 ¶ 0103-0107])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Foster '066 with the entanglement validation of Lucarelli '748 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
the step of validating entanglement of said plurality of entangled photons
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because verifying the actual quantum entanglement improves assurance that the scheme is using reliable qubits. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because Lucarelli '748 teaches [Lucarelli '748 ¶ 0103-0107] modifying a quantum cryptographic scheme [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065] such as that of Foster '066 to arrive at the claimed invention; because Foster '066 and Lucarelli '748 are in the same field of endeavor; because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (verification of quantum entanglement [Lucarelli '748 ¶ 0103-0107]) to improve similar devices and/or methods (quantum cryptographic scheme [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065]) in the same way; because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (verification of quantum entanglement [Lucarelli '748 ¶ 0103-0107]) to known devices and/or methods (quantum cryptographic scheme [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065]) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (quantum cryptographic scheme [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0064-0065] ensures confidentiality and integrity using source of quantum bits that undergoes verification of quantum entanglement [Lucarelli '748 ¶ 0103-0107]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) other considerations do not overcome this conclusion.
Per claim 3 (dependent on claim 2):
Foster '066 in view of Lucarelli '748 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 does not disclose said validating step is performed by periodically diverting entangled photons away from said pair of devices for verification purposes
Further:
Lucarelli '748 discloses said validating step is performed by periodically diverting entangled photons away from said pair of devices for verification purposes (verifies entanglement [Lucarelli '748 ¶ 0103-0107])
For the reasons detailed above with respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Foster '066 with the entanglement validation of Lucarelli '748 to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
said validating step is performed by periodically diverting entangled photons away from said pair of devices for verification purposes
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Foster '066 in view of the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 5 (dependent on claim 4):
Foster '066 discloses the elements detailed in the rejection of claim 4 above, incorporated herein by reference
Foster '066 does not disclose said known quantum correlation signature is established by the manufacturer of said pair of devices
However, Foster '066 discloses said known quantum correlation signature is established for said pair of devices (authenticator, library/DB of challenge-response pairs (CRPs), Fractional Hamming Distance (FHD) [Foster '066 Fig. 8, ¶ 0054, 0065-0066, 0093-0094, 0111, 0115])
Further:
Examiner take Official Notice that it was well known to persons of ordinary skill at the time that a quantum device had a manufacturer and further that the manufacturer was the first of a very limited number of entities (e.g., the provisioner/vendor and the first end customer) that had trusted access to such a new quantum device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (1) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and (2) before the invention was made to have modified Foster '066 with the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an apparatus, method, and product including:
said known quantum correlation signature is established by the manufacturer of said pair of devices
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because relying upon the manufacturer to establish the quantum correlation signature would have kept the number of entities who must be trusted (the so-called "the circle of trust") to a minimum, reducing the possibility of a malicious actor having access. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to combine them at least because it would be obvious to try one (viz., the manufacturer) of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (viz., the set of entities that would handle the device before it reached the first end user/customer), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C PARSONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1475. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWRF 7:30-4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jung Kim can be reached on (571) 272-3804. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/THEODORE C PARSONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494