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 .
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 4 and 6-9 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.
Claim 9 recites the term “a secret key” two times. It is unclear if the secret key obtained by the first and second QKD end nodes are the same secret key or two different secret keys.
Claims 4 and 6 recite “the encrypted local key” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears this may be referring to the local key which is encrypted.
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, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styskal et al. (WO 2022/182371 – see Applicant’s IDS) in view of Bedington et al. (WO/2022/211731 (with US 2024/0178994 used as a translation – reference numbers apply to US reference)).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, Stayskal teaches a method (and corresponding end-node and medium) for QKD applied to an end-node, the method comprising:
Locally generating a local key, and dividing the local key into a first local key part and a second local key part (quantum entropy generator is directly connected by a wire to host A 710 which constitutes a local set up (see [0067] – [0068]) the host A 710 can generate a first set of one or more cryptographic key using a first portion of the quantum entropy received by host A 710 from the quantum entropy generator 705 (see [0071]) the host A 710 can generate a third set of one or more cryptographic keys using a portion (third portion) of the quantum entropy received by host A 710 from the quantum entropy generator 705 (see [0077])).
Receiving, via a first path, remote key information including an encrypted remote key generated by a remote, further end-node (this can involve exchanging the third set of cryptographic key generated in S422 as well the fourth set of cryptographic keys generated in S424 – see [0078] and [0079]).
Receiving, via a second path, a first remote key part of the remote key (the host B 720 can generate a second set of one or more cryptographic keys for use in setting up the initial communication channel with host A 710 – see [0072]).
Performing decryption on the remote key information using the first remote key part to obtain a second remote key part of the remote key (This can involve exchanging information based on the first set of cryptographic keys generated by the host A 710 in S414 as well information based on the second set of cryptographic keys generated by the host B 720 in S416- see [0073]).
Combining the second remote key part and the second local key part with each other to obtain a second key (see [0079]).
Stayskal does not teach that the nodes are quantum nodes and the first and second channels are ground and satellite based respectively.
Bedington teaches QKD nodes which send key information via both satellite and ground channels – see [0004] – [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stayskal by using QKD nodes and satellite and ground channels for transmission, in order to use high security systems with randomness for the key, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Bedington. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Regarding claim 9, Skayskal teaches a similar setup (i.e., two end-nodes being interconnected and setting up a secure channel). Claim 9 also includes all the limitations of claim 1 by dependence. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Stayskal teaches that the secret key is provided to a local application for establishing a secure communication to a corresponding remote application of the further QKD end node using the secret key (see [0080] for exchanging messages).
Regarding claim 14, Stayskal teaches establishing a secure end to end communication between two QKD end nodes using the secret key (see [0080] for exchanging messages).
Regarding claim 4, the cited references do not explicitly teach performing encryption on the first local key part and the second local key part to obtain local key information including the encrypted local key and providing the local key information via the first path. However, providing encryption before transfer was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to protect the keying information during transfer.
Regarding claim 6, Skyskal teaches providing the first local key part via the second path (see figure 4).
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styskal et al. (WO 2022/182371) in view of Bedington et al. (WO/2022/211731 (with US 2024/0178994 used as a translation)), and further in view of Hay et al. (US 2021/0044433).
Regarding claim 11, Styskal teaches the limitations of claim 10, from which claim 11 depends, as discussed above.
Styskal teaches two end nodes, one local and one remote, as discussed above. Bedington also teaches remote nodes (e.g., ground and satellite), as discussed above. The combination teaches the nodes being QKD nodes, as discussed above.
Styskal and Bedington do not teach the specific arrangement of nodes recited in claim 11.
Hay teaches a first QKD neighbor node arranged in the first path adjacent and connected to the first QKD end-node and a second QKD neighbor-node arranged in the first path adjacent and connected to the second QKD end-node, wherein the first QKD neighbor-node and the second QKD neighbor-node each have a respective quantum channel with the respective first and second neighbor node to generate the respective local key (see [0045] and figure 1c which teaches: In the scenario depicted in FIG. 1C, the first endpoint Trusted Node 104 transmits the quantum key QK1 through a quantum channel to the first of a number of middle-Trusted Nodes, Trusted Node 106. There could be just about any number of Trusted Nodes, termed middle-Trusted Nodes, between two endpoint Trusted Nodes 104, 116 in further examples readily devised. That first one of the Trusted Nodes in the middle, Trusted node 106, transmits quantum key QK2 to the next Trusted Node 108. Trusted Node 108 transmits quantum key QK3 to the next Trusted Node 110. Trusted Node 110 transmits quantum key QK4 to the next Trusted Node 112. Trusted Node 112 transmits quantum key QK5 to the next Trusted Node QK 114. And, Trusted Node QK 114 transmits quantum key QK6 to the second endpoint Trusted Node 116. These quantum key exchanges can be done in parallel, and need not be done in sequence. Any of the quantum key transmission, sharing or exchanges could be done in the opposite direction, with appropriately paired quantum key engines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Styskal and Bedington by using the specific arrangement of nodes and key generation procedure claimed in claim 11, in order to securely generate the local keys, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Hay. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Regarding claim 3, Hay teaches generating the local key as a quantum key using a local quantum channel with a QKD neighbor node arranged adjacent to the QKD end node in the first path, wherein the QKD neighbor node is different from the further end node, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Skyskal and Bedington do not explicitly teach that the local key information is provided via a classical channel of the first path. However, QKD systems are known to have a QKD path and a classical path, as demonstrated by Hay (see figure 1c of Hay). The skilled person would choose a classical path to convey keying information, as QKD paths are known to establish the QKD key.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Styskal and Bedington by using a classical path to convey keying information, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Hay. These modifications would result in increased ease of use to the system.
Regarding claim 7, Skyskal and Bedington do not explicitly teach that the first local key part is provided via a classical channel of the second path. However, QKD systems are known to have a QKD path and a classical path, as demonstrated by Hay (see figure 1c of Hay). The skilled person would choose a classical path to convey keying information, as QKD paths are known to establish the QKD key.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Styskal and Bedington by using a classical path to convey keying information, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Hay. These modifications would result in increased ease of use to the system.
Regarding claim 12, Bedington further teaches a plurality of QKD or non-QKD intermediate nodes successively arranged along the first path between the first QKD neighbor node and the second QKD neighbor bode, wherein each of the plurality of QKD or non QKD intermediate nodes in configured to pass on the remote key information or local key information, or both, to a next one of a number of QKD or non-QKD intermediate nodes towards the respective first QKD end node or second QKD end node (see [0045] and figure 1c which teaches: In the scenario depicted in FIG. 1C, the first endpoint Trusted Node 104 transmits the quantum key QK1 through a quantum channel to the first of a number of middle-Trusted Nodes, Trusted Node 106. There could be just about any number of Trusted Nodes, termed middle-Trusted Nodes, between two endpoint Trusted Nodes 104, 116 in further examples readily devised. That first one of the Trusted Nodes in the middle, Trusted node 106, transmits quantum key QK2 to the next Trusted Node 108. Trusted Node 108 transmits quantum key QK3 to the next Trusted Node 110. Trusted Node 110 transmits quantum key QK4 to the next Trusted Node 112. Trusted Node 112 transmits quantum key QK5 to the next Trusted Node QK 114. And, Trusted Node QK 114 transmits quantum key QK6 to the second endpoint Trusted Node 116. These quantum key exchanges can be done in parallel, and need not be done in sequence. Any of the quantum key transmission, sharing or exchanges could be done in the opposite direction, with appropriately paired quantum key engines). Skyskal and Bedington do not explicitly teach that it is a classic channel. However, QKD systems are known to have a QKD path and a classical path, as demonstrated by Hay (see figure 1c of Hay). The skilled person would choose a classical path to convey keying information, as QKD paths are known to establish the QKD key.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Styskal and Bedington by using a classical path to convey keying information, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Hay. These modifications would result in increased ease of use to the system.
Regarding claim 13, the cited references do not explicitly teach each of the number of QKD or non-QKD intermediate nodes, or at least one QKD neighbor node, or both, are configured to individually decrypt and encrypt the remote key information or local key information or both, and pass said information along the first path. However, providing encryption before transfer was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to protect the keying information during transfer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styskal et al. (WO 2022/182371) in view of Bedington et al. (WO/2022/211731 (with US 2024/0178994 used as a translation)), and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2012/0272053).
The teachings of Styskal and Bedington are relied upon for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Skyskal further teaches providing the local key information via the first path (see figure 4). Skyskal and Bedington do not explicitly teach performing encryption on the local key part and the second local key part to obtain local key information including the encrypted local key. However, providing encryption before transfer was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to protect the keying information during transfer.
Skyskal and Bedington do not teach that the first local key part is provided after elapse of a random interval of time from or after providing the local key information.
Brown teaches a system wherein key information is generated and sent intervals – see claims 14, 20, and 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Styskal and Bedington by providing keying information at random intervals in order to enhance the security of the keys, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by Brown. These modifications would result in increased security to the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA C LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7am-2pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/LISA C LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495