The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an optical circular” which has a typographical error. For the purposes of this Action, the limitation is interpreted as “an optical circulator”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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 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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “The breakdown flash of Silicon Avalanche Photodiodes – backdoor for eavesdropper attacks?” by Kurtsiefer et al, Journal of Modern Optics, v. 48, pp. 2039 – 2047, 2001 (hereinafter Kurtsiefer) in view of “Full-field implementation of a perfect eavesdropper on a quantum cryptography system” by Gerhardt et al, Nature communications, 2:349, 10:1038, pp. 1 – 6, 2011 (hereinafter Gerhardt).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Kurtsiefer describes (Fig. 6; Sections 4 and 5) a quantum cryptography apparatus (“quantum cryptography system” in the caption of Fig. 6), comprising:
a photon emitter (a single-photon emitter/source disposed at Alice’s site) configured to emit a photon (e.g., within 632 – 800 nm; 1st and last para. of Section 4);
a photon receiver (comprising a photon detector at Bob’s site; Fig. 6; 1st para. of Sections 4 and 5) configured to receive the emitted photon;
a backflash receiver (a backflash detector at Eve’s site) configured to detect a backflash of the emitted photon from the photon receiver (Fig. 6; 1st para. of Sections 4 and 5); and
a data acquisition system (comprising data acquisition systems at Bob’s site and Eve’s site) coupled to the photon receiver (at Bob’s site) and the backflash receiver (at Eve’s site),
wherein the data acquisition system (its part at Eve’s site) is configured to characterize the backflash (for the purpose of eavesdropping).
Kurtsiefer considers that the quantum cryptography system can encode information based on optical polarization coding (caption of Fig. 6), but does not detail its operation and structural/component particulars. However, Gerhardt describes (e.g., Fig. 1) a quantum cryptography system based on polarization coding (polarization-entangled photon states; “This QKD implementation has four detectors and uses a four-state protocol with polarization cod-ing and passive basis choice (Fig. 1b)” at 1st para. of “Experimental implementation”). Gerhardt expressly teaches (e.g., Fig. 1b) that a photon receiver comprises a polarization optic PBS (polarizing beamsplitter) configured to output a polarization state of a received photon by splitting a photon beam received from a quantum channel (between Alice and Bob in Fig. 1a) into two beams of orthogonal polarizations (horizontal H and vertical V, which are identified in Table 1) and detecting them with respective photodetectors to characterize a polarization dependence of the received photon.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Bob’s receiver and Eve’s receiver in the optical polarization coding system of Kurtsiefer can both have a same general layout/schematic for the same photodetection functionality and can each comprise a polarization optic followed by a respective single-photon photodetector, as explicitly illustrated by Gerhardt, in order to enable proper operation, i.e., characterization of a polarization dependence of the emitted photon by Bob (at Bob’s site) and characterization of a polarization dependence of the backflash by Eve (at Eve’s site) to deduce a polarization state of the emitted photon.
A quantum cryptography apparatus of the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination is illustrated in the Figure below which is produced from Fig. 6 of Kurtsiefer by showing structural particulars of the photon receiver at Bob’s site and backflash receiver at Eve’s site.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further for claim 11, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination considers that the photon receiver (at Bob’s site) comprises:
a polarization optic (including a polarization beam splitter (PBS)) configured to output the emitted photon in a polarization state; and
a photodetector configured to detect the emitted photon from the output of the polarization optic.
Further for claim 12, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination considers that the backflash receiver comprises:
a second polarization optic (including a second PBS) configured to output the backflash in a polarization state; and
a second photodetector configured to detect the backflash from the output of the second polarization optic.
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of Kurtsiefer and Gerhardt combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations of a QKD system (“This QKD implementation has four detectors and uses a four-state protocol with polarization cod-ing and passive basis choice (Fig. 1b)” at 1st para. of “Experimental implementation” of Gerhardt), as detailed above for claims 1, 11, and 12 whose limitations are combined in claim 13.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination considers that, if the backflash is significant enough, Eve is able to detect it and extract, at least partially, information sent by Alice to Bob. In this case, the data acquisition system (its part at Eve’s site) is configured to detect correlations between a polarization state of the emitted photon and a polarization state of the backflash to characterize the polarization dependence of the backflash (and extract information for the purpose of eavesdropping).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination considers that the data acquisition system (at least its part at Bob’s site) is configured to decrypt a quantum key distribution (QKD) between the photon emitter and the photon receiver (e.g., Abstract; first two para. of Gerhardt).
Claims 4, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtsiefer in view of Gerhardt, and further in view of “Backflash light characterization to prevent QKD zero-error hacking” by Meda et al, ArXiv:1605.05562v1, May 18, 2016 (hereinafter Meda).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination considers that, the polarization dependence of the backflash generated by the photon receiver (at Bob’s site) can be received and characterized by the backflash receiver of an eavesdropper (Eve), but the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination does not teach that such measurement by Eve can be deterred/prevented by implementing a passive counter-measure, including an optical isolator, an optical circulator, an optical filter, or some combination thereof. However, Meda describes (Fig. 1 and its description; Sections “The experimental setup” and “Conclusion”) a QKD system for characterizing backflashes comprising a photon receiver (Bib’s single-photon detector) and a backflash receiver (Eve’s detector), wherein the photon receiver is configured to detect an emitted photon (single photons), and the backflash receiver is configured to detect a backflash from the photon receiver. Meda expressly teaches that such measurement of the backflash by Eve can be deterred/prevented by implementing a passive counter-measure, including an optical isolator, an optical circulator, an optical filter, or some combination thereof (2nd para. of “Conclusion”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the apparatus/system of the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt combination can be (pre)configured to include an optical isolator, an optical circulator, or an optical filter, as taught by Meda, if significant backflash is measured during testing (as stated by Meda; Section “Conclusion” of Meda), in order to deter subsequent measurement (by Eve) of the backflash based on the polarization dependence of the backflash, thwart eavesdropping, and ensure the security of the QKD system.
Regarding claim 6, the Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt – Meda combination considers that the data acquisition system is in communication with an optical circulator configured to siphon off the backflash based on the polarization dependence of the backflash (1st para. of Section “Conclusion” of Meda).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 – 7, 10 – 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,666,433. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because the scope of claims of the instant application have a broader scope and are rendered obvious by the (combinations of) limitations recited by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,666,433.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,666,433 in view of Meda. The latter describes (Figs. 4 and 5) measurements of information leakage caused by a backflash from a photon receiver.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claims of the instant application have a broader scope and are rendered obvious by the (combinations of) limitations recited by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,456.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,700. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claims of the instant application have a broader scope and are rendered obvious by the (combinations of) limitations recited by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,700.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter pertaining to claims 5, 7 – 10, and 17 – 20 would be allowable, if Applicant overcomes the double-patenting rejections and rewrites the claims in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 5 is that none of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teaches expressly, renders obvious and provides a motivation for an optical switch connected to the data acquisition system and configured to isolate the backflash based on the polarization dependence of the backflash. The Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt – Meda combination considers only the use of passive/fixed components (such as circulators, filters, etc, as described by Meda) that are installed into the data acquisition system and tested within it, rather than dynamic/active elements, such as an optical switch/modulator that is triggered/activated during the operation of QKD system.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 7 – 9 and 17 – 19 is that none of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teaches expressly, renders obvious and provides a motivation for a data acquisition system configured to generate signals to trigger an alarm and/or a deterrence mechanism (e.g., an optical switch) based on a certain characteristic (e.g., an information leakage rate) of the polarization dependence of the backflash. The Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt – Meda combination considers only the use of passive/fixed components (such as circulators, filters, etc, as described by Meda) that are installed into the data acquisition system and tested within it, rather than dynamic/active elements that are activated during the operation of QKD system and trigger an alarm and/or a deterrence mechanism.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 10 and 20 is that none of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teaches expressly, renders obvious and provides a motivation for a data acquisition system of a QKD system configured to internally calibrate the QKD system based on the polarization dependence of the backflash. The Kurtsiefer – Gerhardt – Meda combination considers only assembly and initial testing of the data acquisition system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights