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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 21.
Applicant cancelled claims 1, 2, and 4-20.
Applicant previously cancelled claim 3.
Applicant added claims 22 and 23.
Claims 21-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112 Rejections
Examiner initially rejected claims 1, 2, and 4-21 under 35 USC 112(a) / 1st paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant cancelled claims 1, 2, and 4-20, rendering those rejections moot. Examiner withdraws this rejection.
With respect to claims 21-23, Applicant argued that the specification provides written support for the limitations at issue. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant has misconstrued the issue. The issue is not that there is verbatim support for the limitations in the specification. Due to the advanced nature of the subject matter, Applicant has not demonstrated that they were in possession of the claimed subject matter by sufficiently disclosing their invention. Applicant claims quantum encryption techniques without disclosing what those underlying quantum encryption techniques would be. As previously mentioned Applicant is essentially claiming a “black box”; describing the inputs and outputs but not the inner workings that actually amount to the core of the claim limitation. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that Applicant has demonstrated that they are able to implement/perform the recited claims. Applicant’s additional description of the processes “leverage principles of Quantum mechanics in Quantum computing to generate encryption keys” amount to mere puffery. This merely describes what Quantum encryption is at an extremely general level, akin to claiming the encrypting process involves “math” in order to achieve its results. As opposed to defining the Quantum encryption as Position-based quantum cryptography, Device-independent quantum cryptography, Kek protocol, or Y-00 protocol. Similarly, Applicant has not described the validating and processing steps in a way that adequately demonstrates they were in possession of the invention.
Examiner maintains this rejection.
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 21-23 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 21-23 there is a lack of written description that demonstrates possession of the invention for the limitations:
encrypting the captured optical tone at the user device using Quantum encryption techniques that leverage principles of Quantum mechanics in Quantum computing to generate encryption keys, thereby securing the data within the optical tone against unauthorized interception and manipulation;
validating authenticity of the transmitted optical tone using Quantum sensors that analyze electromagnetic properties such as frequency and pitch to detect alterations indicating tampering or cloning by comparing these properties to expected characteristics stored during the encryption process, using precise measurements of deviations in frequency and pitch to identify and reject tampered or forged tones;
processing the validated optical tone through spiking neural networks to filter out irrelevant or non-essential information and focus on capturing biometric data embedded within the tone by integrating and processing biometric data that is associated with the user and linked to the optical tone, using physical or behavioral characteristics to further authenticate the transaction;
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 21-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 21 and 22; these claims use the phrase “such as” in the limitation “validating authenticity of the transmitted optical tone using Quantum sensors that analyze electromagnetic properties such as frequency and pitch…”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 21-23 these claims uses the terms “precise measurements” This term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “precise measurements” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 21-23 these claims uses the terms “irrelevant or non-essential information” This term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irrelevant or non-essential information” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 21-23 the limitation “encrypting the captured optical tone at the user device using Quantum encryption techniques that leverage principles of Quantum mechanics in Quantum computing to generate encryption keys, thereby securing the data within the optical tone against unauthorized interception and manipulation” is indefinite. Applicant has not defined the Quantum encryption techniques that are utilized in the claims. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what the scope of the claims would be as there are numerous quantum encryption techniques that were available at the time of filing and it is unclear which ones would be utilized in Applicant’s claims.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
There was no prior art rejection on file. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and will not provide an art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9-6 CDT.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights