DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The instant application does not include any priority claim to an earlier filing date. Therefore, the effective filing date for the claims is 26 May 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “claims 1, 2, 4-7 have been amended to overcome the rejections” on page 7, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 includes three different recitations of “24 CNOT gates”. It is unclear as to whether the second and third recitations refer back to the first or are different. It appears that each of the three recitations are separate sets of “24 CNOT gates”. The examiner suggests amending the claim to state “a first set of 24 CNOT gates”, “a second set of 24 CNOT gates”, and “a third set of 24 CNOT gates”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 57—“Step (5) applies 24 of CNOT gates” should be amended to remove the “of” word.
Paragraph 62—“Step (12) applies 24 of CNOT gates” should be amended to remove the “of” word.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, lines 9-10—“the quantum image” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 9-10 to state --the first quantum image--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15—“the qubits” and “the three registers” both lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 14-15 to state --qubits-- and --three registers--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 18—“second quantum image as qubits”, the phrase is confusing. This objection may be overcome by amending line 18 to remove “as qubits”, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 19—“the quantum-encrypted image” should be amended to state --the quantum encrypted image-- in order to correspond with the previous recitation of the phrase.
Regarding claim 2, line 3—“the encryption image” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 3 to state –the image--, for example, since the “first quantum image” is shown to be constructed from “the image” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, line 6—“an image size of the classical encrypted image is denoted as Ic” and line 7—“the classical encrypted image size” appears to be worded incorrectly as Ic does not appear to correspond to the image size. This objection may be overcome by amending line 6 to state --the classical encrypted image is denoted as Ic-- to remove “an image size” and amending line 7 to state --an image size of the classical encrypted image--.
Regarding claim 4, line 4—“is conducted and uses” should be amended to remove “is conducted” and change “uses” to --using-- in order to correct minor grammatical issues.
Regarding claim 5, line 1—“the qubits” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 1 to state --qubits--.
Regarding claim 5, line 3—“the three registers” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 3 to state --three registers--.
Regarding claim 5, line 4—"a quantum key |C1>” should be removed in order for the sentence to make grammatical sense.
Regarding claim 6, line 4—“of the image” should be amended to state --of the image,-- in order to include a comma.
Regarding claim 6, line 6—“generate chaotic sequences” should be amended to state --generates chaotic sequences-- in order to use the correct form of the word.
Regarding claim 6, line 12—“the basis states” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claims. This objection may be overcome by amending line 12 to state --basis states--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, line 17 should be amended to end with a semicolon.
Regarding claim 6, line 19 should be amended remove the period at the end and to end with a semicolon.
Regarding claim 6, line 23—“the classical chaotic value θi” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 14 to state --a classical chaotic value θi--, for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 14—“24 CNOT gates”, it is unclear as to whether “24 CNOT gates” refers to “24 CNOT gates” of line 9. For examination purposes, “24 CNOT gates” will be interpreted to not be referring to “24 CNOT gates” of line 8. In order to overcome this rejection, line 9 may be amended to state --a first set of 24 CNOT gates-- and line 14 may be amended to state –a second set of 24 CNOT gates--, for example. Line 17 should also be amended to state --the second set of 24 CNOT gates--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 20—“24 CNOT gates”, it is unclear as to whether “24 CNOT gates” refers to “24 CNOT gates” of line 9. For examination purposes, “24 CNOT gates” will not be interpreted to be referring to “24 CNOT gates” of line 9. In order to overcome this rejection, line 20 may be amended to state --a third set of 24 CNOT gates--, for example.
Claim 2 is additionally rejected for being dependent on at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of features as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification. In this case, the allowance is based on the combination of the limitations in each independent claim and not on any single limitation.
Relevant prior art:
Li et al. (CN 117354431 A)—Li discloses the invention forms a chaotic system based on the quantum Logistic chaotic improved by the Logistic and other chaotic, adopts the system chaotic mapping to perform diffusion XOR operation processing on the remote sensing image, eliminates the periodicity of the transformation matrix, and improves the degree of freedom of the low-dimensional chaotic mapping.
Sang et al. “A novel quantum representation of color digital images”—Sang et al. discloses using the novel quantum representation of color digital images (NCQI) to generating a quantum image representation using the basis state of a qubit sequence to store the RBG value of each pixel (Abstract).
Rajan et al. “QMEDSHIELD: A NOVEL QUANTUM CHAOS-BASED IMAGE ENCRYPTION SCHEME FOR SECURE MEDICAL IMAGE STORAGE IN THE CLOUD”—Rajan et al. discloses a novel quantum chaos-based encryption scheme for medical images that comprises bit-plane scrambling, quantum logistic map, quantum operations in the diffusion phase and hybrid chaotic map, DNA encoding, and computations in the confusion phase to transform the plain medical image into a cipher medical image (Abstract).
Panda et al. “Controlling Remote Robots Based on Zidan’s Quantum Computing Model”—Panda et al. discloses Zidan’s model that utilizes the concurrence measure, which measures the degree of entanglement, to perform computations via quantum computers (Section 3.2).
Ahmed Abd El-Latif et al. “Controlled alternate quantum walk-based pseudo-random number generator and its application to quantum color image encryption—Ahmed Abd El-Latif et al. discloses utilizing controlled alternate quantum walks to create PRNG and uses the PRNG mechanism as a component of a quantum color image encryption protocol (Abstract).
Liu et al. (CN 113297606 A)—Liu et al. discloses a color quantum image encryption and decryption method based on multi-chaos and DNA operations (Abstract).
Zhou et al. (CN 105373739 B)—Zhou et al. discloses a quantum-based image encryption method of a hyper-chaotic system (Abstract).
Grigoryan et al. (US 2021/0150403 A1)—Grigoryan et al. discloses techniques by which qubits may be copied and observed in a quantum computing system, as well as for techniques by which images may be represented in quantum computing systems (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach “wherein the applying the 24 CNOT gates between the qubits of the three registers of the second quantum image as qubits generates a second level of the quantum-encrypted image” and “applying, by the quantum circuit, 24 CNOT gates between each qubit of the second level of the quantum encrypted image as control qubits and its corresponding qubit in the new quantum key as target qubits” of claim 1 in combination with the remaining limitations claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach “generating, by the quantum circuit, a quantum decrypting key |C1> by re-executing a MzKeyG algorithm and also based on the classical encrypted image” and “generating, by the quantum circuit, a first round of a quantum decryption phase, |ID1>, by applying 24 CNOT gates between qubits of three registers of the quantum ciphered image |Ic>” of claim 3 in combination with the remaining limitations claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the relevant prior art do not alone or in an obvious combination teach “generating, by the quantum system, a quantum encryption key stream for each pixel i based on the success probabilities of the basis states
PNG
media_image1.png
40
99
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and a degree of entanglement measure, concurrence Ci”, “ generating, by the quantum system, four spreadable qubits as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
43
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”, and “applying, by the quantum system, an Mz operator on the four spreadable qubits, by applying two CNOT gates that entangle two decoupled replicas of
PNG
media_image3.png
28
48
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”, of claim 6 in combination with the remaining limitations claim 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEREMY DUFFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM (ET).
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at (571) 272-8878. 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.
11 August 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights