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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on or reply to the remarks of 1/22/2026. The instant application has claims 1-20 pending. The system, method and medium for determining whether an quantum program is malicious. There a total of 20 claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicant recent amendments states the bagging cascade technique is performed before the processing of quantum code. This amendments is obvious and self-evident as the steps of bagging cascade technique is performed before and as the last limitation states after the benign intent is determined the quantum code is executed. That is, the series of steps preceding the executing of quantum code is the determination of whether code is begin including the bagging cascade technique, i.e. which is essentially the steps being performed before processing/execution of code.
Nevertheless, Chen 2 discloses an series of steps taken to determine whether the code is malicious using wave functions and database identifying attacker group see Par. 0012 & Par. 0066 & Par. 0063. And only after the determination is done that an quantum key and quantum code is executed, i..e. code that is malicious is blocked and counterattack is staged see Abstract & Par. 006-007.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub 2024/0333484 to Kim in view of US Patent Pub 2023/0155822 to Chen and further in view of US Patent Pub 2021/0312047 to Chen (hereinafter Chen 2).
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, Kim discloses A system comprising: a quantum computing device; a quantum as a service (QaaS) interface platform, comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the QaaS interface platform to: receive, via a network, quantum code requested to be executed by the quantum computing device(Fig. 1 item 12, Data represents the program to be analyzed & Fig. 4 item S41); identify, from the quantum code, characteristics of the quantum code(Par. 0014-0016, the extracted functions and classes are analyzed); and cause, based on an indication of a benign intent, execution of the quantum code by the quantum computing device(Fig. 4 & Par. 0024).
But Kim does not disclose identify, based on dependencies between the characteristics of the quantum code and via a bagging cascading technique, an intent of the quantum code.
In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Chen discloses identify, based on dependencies between the characteristics of the quantum code and via a bagging cascading technique, an intent of the quantum code(Abstract & Par. 0014 & Par. 0052-0054, the detecting of abnormal events)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kim invention to incorporate identify, based on dependencies between the characteristics of the quantum code and via a bagging cascading technique, an intent of the quantum code for the advantage of providing an identification quantum threat as taught in Chen see Par. 0051.
Kim nor Chen disclose wherein the bagging cascading technique before processing the quantum code, comprises analyzing program input, program source, program owner, program output, program downloads, program resource utilization, and program firewall access mechanisms via parallel learning; send, via a communication interface and based on identification of an indication of a benign intent of the quantum code, the quantum code to the quantum computing device.
In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Chen 2 discloses the bagging cascading technique before processing the quantum code, comprises analyzing program input, program source, program owner, program output, program downloads, program resource utilization, and program firewall access mechanisms via parallel learning(Par. 0027-0028, the abnormal behavior is detected and analyzing the quantum system & Par. 0063 & Par. 006-007, the code that is malicious is blocked and prevented from being executed & Par. 0012 & Par. 0066 & Par. 0063); send, via a communication interface and based on identification of an indication of a benign intent of the quantum code, the quantum code to the quantum computing device(Par. 0063, the quantum attacks and suspicious behaviors are detected as wells no bad behaviors & Fig. 1 item S1000 & S1003 & Fig. 3B item Analyzed Result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kim invention to incorporate the bagging cascading technique comprises analyzing program input, program source, program owner, program output, program downloads, program resource utilization, and program firewall access mechanisms via parallel learning; send, via a communication interface and based on identification of an indication of a benign intent of the quantum code, the quantum code to the quantum computing device for the advantage of providing an identification quantum threat as taught in Chen 2 see Par. 0063.
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16, The combined method/system/medium of Kim, Chen and Chen 2 , mutatis mutandis, Kim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the characteristics of the quantum code comprise at least two of program input information, program source information, program output information, program resource utilization, program download information, and program network access information(Par. 0091 & Pa. 0095-0096 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 6, the static and dynamic analysis).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, The combined method/system/medium of Kim, Chen and Chen 2 , mutatis mutandis, Kim discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the program network access information comprises an identification of a firewall access mechanism(Par. 00116-00118)
Regarding claim 4, 11, 18, Chen discloses The combined method/system/medium of Kim, Chen and Chen 2 , mutatis mutandis, Kim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the QaaS interface platform to cause, based on an indication of a malicious intent, initiation of network security process(Par. 0051-0054).
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19, The combined method/system/medium of Kim, Chen and Chen 2 , mutatis mutandis, Kim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the QaaS interface platform to train a code analysis engine based on output from the quantum computing after execution of the quantum code(Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 6, 13, 20, The combined method/system/medium of Kim, Chen and Chen 2 , mutatis mutandis, Kim discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the instructions cause the QaaS interface platform to calculate a program intension score based on analysis of the quantum code via the bagging cascading technique, wherein the program intension score is compared to a threshold to identify whether the intent of the quantum code is benign or malicious(Fig. 8, the score is calculated).
Regarding claim 7, 14, The combined method/system/medium of Kim, Chen and Chen 2 , mutatis mutandis, Kim discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the instructions cause the QaaS interface platform, based on identification of a potential risk or security threat, to alert a quantum computing organization monitoring device, and await further input before allowing execution of the quantum code(Par. 021-0025, the vulnerability score for potential risks).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Venkat Perungavoor whose telephone number is (571)272-7213. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on 571-272-3880. 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.
/VENKAT PERUNGAVOOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492 Email: venkatanarayan.perungavoor@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights