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 .
Interview
The examiner attempted to make contact with Applicant’s representative, A.Q. Basit of Basit Law, on 22 January 2026, using the phone number provided in the application file in order to propose amendments to the claims. However, the phone call could not be completed using the provided phone number.
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.
Drawings
No issues have been found with the drawings.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 1, lines 12-14—"applying, by the quantum circuit, 24 CNOT gates between the qubits of the three registers of the quantum image as control qubits, and the corresponding qubits of the three registers, respectively, of the quantum key as target qubits”, is not disclosed in the specification. The limitation appears to correspond to paragraph 60 of the specification which indicates the gates are applied to the qubits of the quantum image |I2> which is the second quantum image of the “two quantum identical plain images” of lines 3-4 and that the quantum key is |C2>.
The first issue is that “the quantum image” of the above-stated limitation has antecedent basis to “a quantum image” of lines 8-9 in claim 1. The specification discloses that the “quantum image” of lines 8-9 is |I1> which is the first quantum image of the “two quantum identical plain images” (see paragraph 57).
The second issue is that “the quantum key” of the above-stated limitation has antecedent basis to “a quantum key” of line 9 in claim 1. The specification discloses that the “quantum key” of line 9 is |C1> (see paragraph 57).
This objection may be overcome by:
amending lines 3-4 to state --converting, by the quantum circuit, the image into a first quantum image and a second quantum image, wherein the first quantum image and the second quantum image are identical plain images--;
amending lines 8-9 to state --between qubits of the first quantum image--;
amending line 13 to state --registers of the second quantum image--; and
amending line 14 to state --the new quantum key--.
Regarding claim 1, lines 17-19—"applying, by the quantum circuit, 24 of CNOT gates between each qubit of the quantum scrambling image as the control qubits and its corresponding qubit in the quantum key as the target qubits”, is not disclosed in the specification. The limitation appears to correspond to paragraph 63 of the specification which indicates the gates are applied to the qubits of the quantum scrambling image |E2> and that the quantum key is |C2>.
The issue is that “the quantum key” of the above-stated limitation has antecedent basis to “a quantum key” of line 9 in claim 1. The specification discloses that the “quantum key” of line 9 is |C1> (see paragraph 57).
This objection may be overcome by:
amending lines 18-19 to state --the new quantum key--.
Regarding claim 4, lines 2-3—"reversing, by the quantum circuit, a reverse quantum plain scrambling (QPS) operation of the quantum decryption image |ID1> is conducted” is not disclosed in the specification. The limitation appears to correspond to paragraph 70 of the specification which indicates reversing the effect of the quantum plain scrambling (QPS).
The issue is that the claim indicates to reverse a reverse QPS.
This objection may be overcome by:
amending lines 2-3 to state --conducting, by the quantum circuit, a reverse quantum plain scrambling (QPS) operation of the quantum decryption image |ID1>--, for example.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 8—“24 of CNOT gates” should be amended to state --24 CNOT gates-- in order to remove the extra word.
Regarding claim 1, lines 12-13—“the qubits” and “the three registers” both lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 12-13 to state --qubits-- and --three registers--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, lines 13-14—“the corresponding qubits” and “the three registers” both lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 13-14 to state --corresponding qubits of three registers, respectively, of--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, lines 17-18—“the quantum scrambling image” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 17-18 to state --the second-level of the quantum encrypted image--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 18—“the control qubits” and line 19—“the target qubits” both lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 18 to state --control qubits--, and line 19 to state --target qubits--, for example.
Regarding claim 2, line 2—“the quantum confusion operation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 2 to state --the quantum diffusion operation--, for example.
Regarding claim 2, line 2—“the encryption image” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 2 to state --the first quantum image--, for example.
Regarding claim 2, lines 2-3—“wherein a new version of the quantum-encrypted” should be amended to complete the phrase or be deleted.
Regarding claim 3, line 7—“the classical encrypted image size” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 7 to state --an image size of the classical encrypted image--, for example.
Regarding claim 3, lines 2-3—“the total number” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending lines 2-3 to state --a total number--, for example.
Regarding claim 3, line 12—“the classical ciphered image Ic” should be amended to state --the classical encrypted image Ic-- in order to correspond with the previous recitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, line 14—“the quantum decryption phase” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 14 to state --a quantum decryption phase--, for example.
Regarding claim 3, line 15—“by applying 24 CNOT gates between qubits of three registers” may be amended to state --by applying 24 CNOT gates between qubits of three registers of the quantum ciphered image |Ic>--, for example in order to complete the phrase.
Regarding claim 4, line 5—“the quantum image |ID1>” should be amended to state --the quantum decryption image |ID1>-- in order to correspond to the previous recitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, line 5—“the computational basis” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 5 to state --a computational basis--, for example.
Regarding claim 4, line 7—“the classical ciphered image ID1” should be amended to state --the classical image ID1-- in order to correspond to the previous recitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, line 7—“the parameters” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 7 to state --parameters--, for example.
Regarding claim 4, line 9—“4generating” should be amended to state --generating-- in order to remove the extra “4”.
Regarding claim 4, line 9—“the second round” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 9 to state --a second round--, for example.
Regarding claim 4, line 11—“the plaintext quantum image |I>” should be amended to correspond to “a plaintext image |I>” of line 10.
Regarding claim 4, line 12—“the classical original image I” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 12 to state --a classical original image I--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, lines 7-8—“the one-dimensional chaotic logistic door” should be amended to correspond to “the one-dimensional chaotic logistic map” of line 3.
Regarding claim 6, line 11—“generate” should be amended to state --generating-- in order to use the correct form of the word for the claim steps.
Regarding claim 6, line 12—“the success probabilities”, line 12—“the basis states”, and line 12—“the degree” all lack sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 12 to state --success probabilities--, --basis states--, and --a degree--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, line 16—“the Y-rotation gate” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 16 to state --a Y-rotation gate--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, line 17—“two-qubit is” should be amended to correspond to “two-qubit system” of line 15.
Regarding claim 6, line 17 should be amended to remove the extra period at the end of the line.
Regarding claim 6, line 20—“the Mz operator” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. This objection may be overcome by amending line 20 to state --an Mz operator--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, line 24—“encryptions” should be amended to state --encryption-- in order to use the singular form of the word.
Regarding claim 6, line 25—“keys are used to encrypt” should be amended to state --keys to encrypt-- in order to remove the extra words.
Regarding claim 7, line 1—“the three encryption keys are a quantum key generation algorithm” should be amended to state --the three encryption keys are generated using a quantum key generation algorithm-- in order to include the missing words.
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, 2, and 4-7 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 9—“a quantum key”, it is unclear as to whether “a quantum key” refers to “a quantum encrypted key” of line 6. For examination purposes, “a quantum key” will be interpreted to be referring to “a quantum encrypted key” of line 6. In order to overcome this rejection, line 9 may be amended to state --the quantum encrypted key--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 12—“24 CNOT gates”, it is unclear as to whether “24 CNOT gates” refers to “24 of CNOT gates” of line 8. For examination purposes, “24 CNOT gates” will be interpreted to be referring to “24 of CNOT gates” of line 8. In order to overcome this rejection, line 12 may be amended to state --the 24 CNOT gates--, for example.
Regarding claim 1, lines 15-16—“wherein the applying the 24 CNOT gates”, it is unclear as to whether “the applying the 24 CNOT gates” refers to the “applying” of line 8 or the “applying” of line 12. For examination purposes, “wherein the applying the 24 CNOT gates” will be interpreted to be referring to the “applying” of line 12. In order to overcome this rejection, lines 15-16 may be amended to refer to the “applying” step of line 12, for example.
Regarding claim 1, line 17—“24 of CNOT gates”, it is unclear as to whether “24 of CNOT gates” refers to “24 of CNOT gates” of line 8. For examination purposes, “24 of CNOT gates” will be interpreted to be referring to “24 of CNOT gates” of line 8. In order to overcome this rejection, line 17 may be amended to state --the 24 CNOT gates--, for example.
Regarding claim 4, line 4—“qubits”, it is unclear as to whether “qubits” refers to “qubits” of claim 3. For examination purposes, “qubits” will not be interpreted to be referring to “qubits” of claim 3. In order to overcome this rejection, line 4 may be amended to state --qubits of the quantum decryption image |ID1>--, for example.
Regarding claim 5, line 4—“a quantum key |C1>”, it is unclear as to whether “a quantum key |C1>” is referring to “a quantum decrypting key |C1>” of claim 3. Also, line 3—“the three registers” lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the claim. Furthermore, lines 2-4—"corresponding qubits of the three registers, wherein the control qubits are |C1(YR,XR)>, |C1(YG,XG)>, and |C1(YB,XB)> of a quantum key |C1> as target qubits” is unclear and confusing. For examination purposes, lines 2-4 will be interpreted as “corresponding qubits of three registers of the quantum decrypting key |C1>, |C1(YR,XR)>, |C1(YG,XG)>, and |C1(YB,XB)> as target qubits. This rejection may be overcome by amending lines 2-4 to state --corresponding qubits of three registers of the quantum decrypting key |C1>, |C1(YR,XR)>, |C1(YG,XG)>, and |C1(YB,XB)> as target qubits--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, line 22—“a concurrence value Ci”, it is unclear as to whether “a concurrence value Ci” refers to “concurrence Ci” of line 13. For examination purposes, “a concurrence value Ci” will be interpreted to be referring to “concurrence Ci” of line 13. In order to overcome this rejection, line 22 may be amended to state --the concurrence Ci--, for example.
Regarding claim 6, line 23—“a key stream”, it is unclear as to whether “a key stream” refers to “a quantum encryption key stream” of line 11. For examination purposes, “a key stream” will be interpreted to be referring to “a quantum encryption key stream” of line 11. In order to overcome this rejection, line 23 may be amended to state --the quantum encryption key stream--, for example.
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are 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).
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 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 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4 and 5 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.
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:
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 generates a second level of the quantum-encrypted image” and “applying, by the quantum circuit, 24 of CNOT gates between each qubit of the quantum scrambling image as the control qubits and its corresponding qubit in the quantum key as the 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 the quantum decryption phase, ID1, by applying 24 CNOT gates between qubits of three registers” 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 “generate, 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 the 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, the 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
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.
22 January 2026
/Jeremy S Duffield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498