DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/626,862 filed on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
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 § 103
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja et
al. (hereinafter Nagaraja), Pub. No.: US 2024/0187221 in view of Kunz et al. (hereinafter Kunz), Pub. No.: US 2026/0113184.
Referring to claim 1, Nagaraja teaches a computer-implemented method for providing secure communication for connected systems, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, by a context processing engine, context data of the first connected system using the context processing engine, wherein the context data comprises collection of operational states of at least the first connected system (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 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 transmission of the encrypted message to a second connected system (para. 0098 and fig. 4, see step 426).
Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose receiving a communication session indication associated with a first connected system; authenticating the first connected system based on an identity and access management (IAM) policy.
However, in an analogous art, Kunz discloses a receiving a communication session indication associated with a first connected system; authenticating the first connected system based on an identity and access management (IAM) policy (paras. 0017, 0160, 0167, 0186, 0236 and fig. 3; claim 4, IAM baes authentication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine the teachings of Nagaraja with the method and system of Kunz, wherein receiving a communication session indication associated with a first connected system; authenticating the first connected system based on an identity and access management (IAM) policy to provide users with a means for cybersecurity, for example cybersecurity for communications and data management. More particularly, the present invention can relate to systems and methods for securing a digital network environment, for example against present day security threats and potential future quantum computing derived threats (Kunz: para. 0002).
Referring to claim 2, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Nagaraja further teaches generating a post quantum cryptography public-private key pair comprising the post quantum cryptography public key and a post quantum cryptography private key (Nagaraja: paras. 0096- 0097, 0111 and figs. 4-5, post quantum cryptography private key).
Referring to claim 3, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Nagaraja further teaches providing the post quantum cryptography private key to the second connected system to facilitate decryption of the encrypted message (Nagaraja: abstract, paras. 0042, 0049., 0057-0059 and figs. 1-5, decryption of the encrypted message).
Referring to claim 4, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the post quantum cryptography public-private key pair is generated using key encapsulation methodology (Nagaraja: paras. 0026, 0040, 0094, 0099, 0154 and figs. 4-5).
Referring to claim 5, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the post quantum cryptography public-private key pair is generated via a cloud-based quantum service computing entity (Nagaraja: paras. 0096- 0097, 0111 and figs. 4-5).
Referring to claim 6, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5, 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 (Nagaraja: paras. 0096- 0097, 0111 and figs. 4-5).
Referring to claim 7, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6, 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 (Nagaraja: paras. 0058-0059, 0079 and fig. 1; cloud-based service).
Referring to claim 8, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Nagaraja further teaches wherein the encrypted message comprises a ciphertext (Nagaraja: para. 0067 and fig. 4, encrypting the message at step 424).
Referring to claim 9, Nagaraja and Kunz teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, 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 (Nagaraja: 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.
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 06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights