Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/626,862

Secure Communication for Connected Systems Using Post Quantum Cryptography

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Apr 04, 2024
Examiner
BAYOU, YONAS A
Art Unit
2499
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
711 granted / 845 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
873
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.2%
-1.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 845 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments /Remarks filed on 12/15/2025. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended; and claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL. 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 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claims 1, 10 and 19, the acronyms ‘IAM’ is used without spelling out in full at their first occurrences in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Response to Arguments Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 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)(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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagaraja et al. (hereinafter Nagaraja), Pub. No.: US 2024/0187221. Referring to claim 1, Nagaraja teaches a computer-implemented method for providing secure communication for connected systems, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a communication session indication associated with a first connected system; authenticating the first connected system based on IAM policy (para. 0057, The operator database 116 may comprise part of an identity management system that creates, manages, and deletes user (e.g., operator) access to system resources.); obtaining, by a context processing engine, a context data of the first connected system using a context processing engine, wherein the context data comprises collection of operational states of the connected systems (paras. 0099, 0159 and figs. 4 and 8, obtaining a protocol file…at step 426 in fig. 4): encrypting a message to generate an encrypted message using based on a post quantum cryptography public key associated with the first connected system, wherein the encrypted message is generated based on the context data (para. 0067 and fig. 4, encrypting the message at step 424); and causing transmitting of the encrypted message to a second connected system (para. 0098 and fig. 4, see step 426). Referring to claim 2, Nagaraja further teaches comprising: generating a post quantum cryptography public-private key pair comprising the post quantum cryptography public key and a post quantum cryptography private key (paras. 0096- 0097, 0111 and figs. 4-5, post quantum cryptography private key). Referring to claim 3, Nagaraja further teaches comprising: providing the post quantum cryptography private key to the second connected system to facilitate decryption of the encrypted message (abstract, paras. 0042, 0049., 0057-0059 and figs. 1-5, decryption of the encrypted message). Referring to claim 4, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the post quantum cryptography public-private key pair is generated using key encapsulation methodology (paras. 0026, 0040, 0094, 0099, 0154 and figs. 4-5). Referring to claim 5, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the post quantum cryptography public-private key pair is generated via a cloud-based quantum service computing entity (paras. 0096- 0097, 0111 and figs. 4-5). Referring to claim 6, Nagaraja further teaches storing one or more of the post quantum cryptography public key or the post quantum cryptography private key in a key store (paras. 0096- 0097, 0111 and figs. 4-5). Referring to claim 7, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the key store is hosted by a quantum edge computing entity associated with a gateway network entity, wherein the quantum edge computing entity is communicatively coupled to the cloud-based quantum service computing entity (paras. 0058-0059, 0079 and fig. 1; cloud-based service). Referring to claim 8, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the encrypted message comprises a ciphertext (para. 0067 and fig. 4, encrypting the message at step 424). Referring to claim 9, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the first connected system is associated with a flight management system onboard an aircraft and the second connected system is associated with an air traffic control system (paras. 0105, 0157, 0159 and figs. 4 and 8). Referring to claim 10, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 11, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 12, This claim is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 13, This claim is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 14, This claim is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 15, This claim is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 16, This claim is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 17, This claim is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 18, This claim is similar in scope to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 19, This claim is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Referring to claim 20, This claim is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892. 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 YONAS A BAYOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM. 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, Philip Chea can be reached at 571-272-3951. 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. /YONAS A BAYOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499 02/18/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 04, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603776
METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING AUTHENTICATABLE SATELLITE DATA BETWEEN ENTITIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592838
CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM IDENTITY (CAI) CERTIFICATE SELECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592916
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO AUTHENTICATE COMPUTING DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592822
CODE CONVERSION APPARATUS, CODE CONVERSION METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587530
CLOUD ARCHITECTURE FOR ENFORCING MULTI-DIMENSIONAL DATA SECURITY USING SECURITY ASSIGNMENTS BEYOND ROLE-BASED ACCESS CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 845 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month