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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 7/31/2024, in which, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/31/2024 is/are accepted by The Examiner.
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 1, 11 and their respective dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The test for enablement according to 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is whether the ordinary artisan, based upon the disclosure, would be able to make and use the invention without undue experimentation, and a determination of whether the experimentation required is undue should be conducted in accordance with the Wands factors {In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
In the present case, independent claims 1, 11, and their respective dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims are not fully supported if their subject matter is different to the subject matter of the description and the scope of the claims must not be broader than is justified by the description and they must be enabled by the description across their entire scope. However, there are well founded reasons to suppose that the invention cannot be worked through the whole of the field claimed by routine methods of experimentation or analysis.
For Example, independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “translating quantum bits (qubits) into classical bits (bits) and vice versa, facilitating both qubit to bit translation, bit to qubit translation, and algorithmic decryption and re-encryption processes for secure data lifecycle management; distributing and encrypting classical and quantum data; managing quantum decryption outputs in a format utilizable by classical data processing applications; optimizing the conversion process based on a predetermined set of performance criteria; ensuring the security of data during the conversion process, incorporating quantum-resistant encryption methods; and facilitating data exchange between the quantum computing system and the classical computing system.” (Emphasis added)
Applicant’s claim recites result-based language that contains vague and indefinite terminology “facilitating …”, “algorithmic … processes”, “managing…”, “optimizing… [a process]”, “ensuring the security…”, “incorporating … methods”, “facilitating …”. The scope for any one of these individual functionalities or steps is enormous and, likewise, the disclosure required for enablement of the full scope of the claimed functionalities is equally enormous.
Applicant’s disclosure is silent with regards how to perform “translating”. Note the specification Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 20, 34, 46-47, 54, 73, etc., repeats the claim language and does not elaborate, explain, or otherwise indicate the element/entity to perform the qubits to bits and vice versa, to the amount necessary to not require undue experimentation for the entire scope of the functionality claimed.
Applicant’s disclosure is silent with regards how to perform “algorithmic decryption and re-encryption”. Note the specification Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 10-11, 57, 70, etc., repeats the claim language and does not elaborate, explain, or otherwise indicate the element/entity to perform the algorithmic decryption and re-encryption processes for secure data lifecycle management, to the amount necessary to not require undue experimentation for the entire scope of the functionality claimed.
Applicant’s disclosure is silent with regards how to perform “distributing and encrypting”. Note the specification Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 10-11, 57, 70, etc., repeats the claim language and does not elaborate, explain, or otherwise indicate the element/entity to perform distributing and encrypting classical and quantum data, to the amount necessary to not require undue experimentation for the entire scope of the functionality claimed.
Applicant’s disclosure is silent with regards how to perform “managing quantum decryption”. Note the specification Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 10-11, 57, 70, etc., repeats the claim language and does not elaborate, explain, or otherwise indicate the element/entity to perform managing quantum decryption outputs in a format utilizable by classical data processing applications, to the amount necessary to not require undue experimentation for the entire scope of the functionality claimed.
Applicant’s disclosure is silent with regards how to perform “optimizing the conversion process…, ensuring the security…, incorporating quantum-resistant encryption methods”. Note the specification Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 10-11, 23, 35, 38, 48-49, etc., repeats the claim language and does not elaborate, explain, or otherwise indicate the element/entity to perform optimizing the conversion process based on a predetermined set of performance criteria; ensuring the security of data during the conversion process, incorporating quantum-resistant encryption methods, to the amount necessary to not require undue experimentation for the entire scope of the functionality claimed.
Applicant’s disclosure is silent with regards how to perform “facilitating data exchange”. Note the specification Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 10-11, 70, etc., repeats the claim language and does not elaborate, explain, or otherwise indicate the element/entity to perform facilitating data exchange between the quantum computing system and the classical computing system, to the amount necessary to not require undue experimentation for the entire scope of the functionality claimed.
With respect to the Wands factors, Examiner finds that:
(A) The breadth of the claims: The claims are ambiguous in comparison to the actual steps the ordinary artisan would have to actually performing any of the functions such as translating, distribution method, encryption, decryption, etc., as noted above.) As several examples, there would specific and particular hardware implementations required to translate qubits to classical bits, including distinct different implementations for different species of translations. However, applicant’s disclosure fails to recite even one example of any specific hardware to achieve this. As another example, “optimizing a conversion process …” could be achieved by near infinite underlying acts. However, applicant’s disclosure does not list examples of any underlying acts, certainly not an amount sufficient to enable (i.e., not require undue experimentation) all the acts covered by the scope of the claim language.
(B) The nature of the invention: The use of Classical computers, Quantum computers, and encoding information (including information that may be represented with ‘classical bits’) into qubits is a known technology, however, the claim and the specification is silent as to how the steps are performed.
(C) The state of the prior art: The use of Classical computers, Quantum computers, and encoding information (including information that may be represented with ‘classical bits’) into qubits is a known technology; however, the specification does not suggest the system is actually developed or implemented. Paragraph [0022]-[0026] indicates applicant still needs to design and implement appropriate data structures, communication protocols, and error handling mechanisms to manage the interaction between the quantum and classical modules, and not that the element/entity actually exists or is functional.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The skill of the ordinary artisan for classical to quantum computing and cryptography is fairly high, with the ordinary artisan holding a dual bachelor of CpE and Physics, at least a 4 years degree in computer science, computer engineering, network security, physics, or similar.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: With regard to basic of classical to quantum computing and cryptography technology, it is a well-known and well-understood area and there is a high predictability.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Minimal, if any, direction is provided by the inventor. As indicated above, no direction is given towards the underlying hardware elements, nor any explanation how the steps are performed. The specification completely lacks examples for how functions are achieved, or if there is any disclosure, it is equally vague and nebulous without providing the necessary information to achieve the claimed functions.
(G) The existence of working examples: There is currently no working.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Significant experimentation would be required on the part of the ordinary artisan to perform any of the suggested steps, as neither the prior art nor the present specification provides much guidance on how one would actually perform any of the steps suggested above.
Considered altogether, the evidence weighs heavily on the side of undue experimentation being required. Accordingly, the claims fail to meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Dependent claims are rejected for incorporating the deficiency of claims 2-10 and 12-20 respectively.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 11 reciting “means for the advanced distribution and encryption of classical and quantum data; means for managing quantum decryption outputs in a format utilizable by classical data processing applications;
…
means for ensuring the security of data during the conversion process, incorporating quantum-resistant encryption methods.”.
It is unclear what is the “advanced distribution” and which element is used to carry out the advance distribution.
It is unclear how the data are secured during the conversion process, as no elements are method is suggested.
Independent claims 2 and 12 reciting “means for utilizing a quantum algorithm to analyze and decrypt cryptographic functions utilized in blockchain technology, enabling the efficient and effective verification or reconstruction of the pre-hash input values and the ability to analyze, decrypt, disrupt, or provide insights for blockchain systems.”.
It is unclear how one can decrypt the “functions”, and there is no mention in the specification the step/method in doing so.
Independent claims 3 and 13 reciting “means for utilizing one or more quantum algorithms to decrypt cryptographic protocols.”.
It is unclear how one can decrypt the “protocols”, and there is no mention in the specification the step/method in doing so.
Independent claims 4 and 14 reciting “means for developing one or more quantum algorithms using a quantum computing library.”.
It is unclear how one can developing the “quantum algorithms”, and there is no mention in the specification the step/method in doing so.
Independent claims 8 and 18 reciting “means for the advanced distribution and encryption of classical and quantum data include means for the advanced distribution and Ribest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) encryption and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption of classical and quantum data.”.
It is unclear what is being claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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.
Claim limitations “means for translating…, means for the advanced distribution…, means for managing…, means for optimizing…, means for ensuring…” in claim 1, and other “means” in the dependent claims are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification fails to disclosed the corresponding structure including the steps for achieving any function or step.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed is being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method and system. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’1l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent- eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-— ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original).
The USPTO published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO's examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.1
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(II) (A) (1), 2106.04(a). If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP §§ 2106.04 (IT) (A) (2), 2106.04(d). Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP § 2106.04 (IT) (A) (2).
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 1
The abstract idea to which claims 1 and 11 are directed to is mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and mathematical relationships/calculations. In particular, the claims recite the following abstract concepts:
“means for translating quantum bits (qubits) into classical bits (bits) and vice versa, facilitating both qubit to bit translation, bit to qubit translation, and algorithmic decryption and re-encryption processes for secure data lifecycle management” (i.e., abstract idea of translating/converting of data and algorithmic decryption/encryption are mathematical concepts found abstract by the Courts in Digitech, Gram)
“means for the advanced distribution and encryption of classical and quantum data” (i.e., abstract idea of algorithmic decryption/encryption are mathematical concepts found abstract by the Courts in Classen, Digitech, Gram)
“means for managing quantum decryption outputs in a format utilizable by classical data processing applications” (i.e., abstract idea of manipulation of data, algorithmic decryption/encryption are mathematical concepts found abstract by the Courts in Ambry/Myriad CAFC, Digitech, Gram)
“means for optimizing the conversion process based on a predetermined set of performance criteria” (i.e., abstract idea of manipulation of data based on set criteria are mathematical concepts found abstract by the Courts in Digitech, Gram)
“means for ensuring the security of data during the conversion process, incorporating quantum-resistant encryption methods” (i.e., abstract idea of manipulation of data based on set criteria are mathematical concepts found abstract by the Courts in Digitech, Gram)
“a communication interface facilitating data exchange between the quantum computing system and the classical computing system” (i.e., abstract idea of mental process of sending, receiving data are found abstract by the Courts in FairWarning, Content Extraction)
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified abstract ideas in patent claims by making comparisons to concepts found in past decisions to be judicial exceptions to eligibility. The 2019 IEG summarizes concepts the courts have considered to be abstract ideas by associating eligibility decisions with judicial descriptors (e.g., “an idea of itself,” “certain methods of organizing human activities”, “mathematical relationships and formulas”) based on common characteristics. These associations define the judicial descriptors in a manner that stays within the confines of the judicial precedent, with the understanding that these associations are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some concepts may be associated with more than one judicial descriptor.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of translating information (i.e., abstract idea mental process) and conversion such as encryption/decryption (i.e., abstract idea of mathematical concepts) as defined by the claimed steps above.
The present claims, as a whole, and individual limitations, are reciting abstract concept of translation, encryption, decryption, and communicate of data. As such the claims are analogous to Digitech, Gram, Content Extraction and FairWarning, Electric Power Group, and TLI Comms.
Looking at the steps of the claims, for each of the claims, data are being translates, encrypted and decrypted, which was ruled abstract in:
a. Collecting and comparing known information (Classen);
b. Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC);
c. Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected (FairWarning);
d. Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction);
e. Obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource);
f. Collecting, selecting, categorizing, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group);
g. Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech);
h. Virus Screening (int. Ventures v. Symantec ‘610 patent);
i. A mathematical formula for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition (Grams).
Furthermore, the invention is nothing more than translation, encryption, decryption of data as described in the claims that can be performed mathematical concepts. The steps are similar to concepts and ideas that have been identified as abstract by the courts.
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2
The 2019 Revised Guidance sets forth a non-exhaustive listing of considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.04(d). In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.
The abstract functions of the claims in the case are claim(s) is/are directed to system and method of translation, encryption, decryption, and distribution/communication as defined by the claimed steps. The claims do not require an arguably inventive set of components, methods, or algorithms. The recitation a classical computing system and a quantum computing system to manipulate the information describes a solution merely at the level of a software to translate data. The abstract idea is implemented using generic computing elements (“computers, programs, medium”) and an off the shelf that do not integrate a practical application of the abstract idea in the claims (step 2A, prong 2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional generic computing elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims recite a mental process, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("(Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional feature[s] that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” and “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” as examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The considerations are whether the claim includes:
Improvements to another technology or technical field;
Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application;
Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment;
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer;
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception;
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception;
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The relevant question under Step 2B is whether claim includes an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements of claim beyond the abstract idea, namely, a “classical computing system”, “a quantum computing system”, “a communication interface” is/are a conventional computing equipment and algorithm used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. These additional elements do not provide an inventive concept; rather, they simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception.
Applying the test to the claims in the application, the structural elements of the claims, which include a computer when taken in combination with the functional elements claim(s) is/are directed to system and method to translate, encrypt, decrypt, communicate, together do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a general purpose computer and/or environment of the user). When considered as an ordered combination, the Examiner does not find any combination of the additional elements that amounts to more than the sum of the parts. The Examiner finds that the individual elements of the claims are performing their intended roles and functions. In most cases, the additional elements are applied merely to carry out data processing, as discussed above, fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers in our common day-to-day interactions. Therefore, the claimed interactions of the various generically recited methods/devices lacks an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application in the sense that the result is equivalent to purely mental activity and mathematical concepts.
Dependent claims do not add an inventive step to the abstract idea of the independent claims and are therefore rejected based on the aforementioned rationale discussed in the rejection. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, pertain to blockchain, algorithms, and different encryption methods without adding any inventive concept or using an unconventional computing element or improving the underlying computer technology.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastunkov et al. (US 20230385682 A1; hereinafter Rastunkov) in view of Broadbent (US 8897449 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Rastunkov discloses a data conversion module for interfacing between a quantum computing system and a classical computing system, comprising:
means for translating quantum bits (qubits) into classical bits (bits) and vice versa, facilitating both qubit to bit translation, bit to qubit translation (performing quantum to classical translation and classical to quantum [Rastunkov; ¶44-59; Fig. 1 and associated texts]). Rastunkov discloses a classical computer and a quantum computer for translating data. Rastunkov does not explicilty discloses algorithmic decryption and re-encryption processes for secure data lifecycle management; however, in a related and analogous art, Broadbent teaches these features.
In particular, Broadbent teaches quantum and classical encryption methods which allows communication between devices on different channels, thus the Classical-Quantum data are secured with different methods, depends on the form of communication [Broadbent; 4:4-39, 5:1-63; Fig. 1 and associated text]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastunkov with methods of securing data from Broadbent with the motivation to secure data between communication devices.
means for the advanced distribution and encryption of classical and quantum data (perform encryption and decryption and transmitting over different communication channels [Broadbent; 4:4-39, 5:1-63; Fig. 1 and associated text]);
means for managing quantum decryption outputs in a format utilizable by classical data processing applications (performing quantum to classical translation and classical to quantum [Rastunkov; ¶44-59; Fig. 1 and associated texts], both computing devices has capability to translating data between classical-Quantum [Broadbent; 4:4-39, 5:1-63; Fig. 1 and associated text]);
means for optimizing the conversion process based on a predetermined set of performance criteria (the conversion is based on the algorithm and set criteria (Rastunkov; ¶81-90);
means for ensuring the security of data during the conversion process, incorporating quantum-resistant encryption methods (provide protocols that can achieve the highest possible level of security (e.g., the same level of privacy as the quantum one-time pad) [Broadbent; 4:37-60, 24:8-27]); and
a communication interface facilitating data exchange between the quantum computing system and the classical computing system (classical computer can communicate with the quantum computer wirelessly or via the internet [Rastunkov; ¶104]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses further comprising means for utilizing one or more quantum algorithms to decrypt cryptographic protocols (protocols described here can be used in a variety of applications. For example, a delegated, private execution of Shor's algorithm can be used to factor in polynomial time on a quantum computer. Where the computation is performed on an encrypted input, the server will not know which integer he is factoring; if this integer corresponds to an RSA public key then the server will not know which public key he is helping to break. Thus, quantum computing on encrypted data may be useful, for example, for the delegation of problems that can be solved in quantum polynomial time, with the underlying assumption that they cannot be solved in classical polynomial time [Broadbent; 3:3-27]). The motivation to secure data between communication devices.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses further comprising means for developing one or more quantum algorithms using a quantum computing library (quantum database with quantum algorithms for data outputs [Rastunkov; ¶44-59; Fig. 1 and associated texts]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses wherein the one or more quantum algorithms include Shor’s algorithm and Lenstra elliptic-curve factorization Grover’s algorithm (Shor’s and RSA [Broadbent; 3:12-27]). Although Rastunkov-Broadbent combination does not explicitly use Lenstra elliptic-curve factorization Grover’s algorithm; however, Lenstra elliptic-curve factorization is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastunkov-Broadbent combination with Lenstra elliptic-curve factorization with the motivation to compute factoring faster.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses wherein the means for translating quantum bits (qubits) into classical bits (bits) and vice versa comprise means for converting qubit measurement results into classical bit strings (performing quantum to classical translation and classical to quantum, converting encryption key to classical bit strings [Rastunkov; ¶44-59; Fig. 1 and associated texts] [Broadbent; 4:31-39]). The motivation to help secure data between communication devices.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses further comprising means for providing the quantum decryption outputs to the classical computing system (the data may be in any form and can be converted between Classical-Quantum based on the requirements [Rastunkov; ¶44-59; Fig. 1 and associated texts][Broadbent; 4:4-39, 5:1-63; Fig. 1 and associated text]). The motivation to help secure data between communication devices.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses wherein the means for the advanced distribution and encryption of classical and quantum data include means for the advanced distribution and Ribest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) encryption and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption of classical and quantum data (Shor’s and RSA [Broadbent; 3:12-27]). Although Rastunkov-Broadbent combination does not explicitly use Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption; however, AES is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastunkov-Broadbent combination with AES with the motivation to secure data and better quantum-resistant.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses further comprising means for translating a cryptographic key into the format utilizable by classical data processing applications (The initial state can be a classical state, a quantum state, or a combination of quantum and classical information. The encryption key can include any suitable information. In some cases, the encryption key is a classical bit string. In some cases, the encryption key includes qubits [Broadbent; 4:31-39]). The motivation to help secure data between communication devices.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination discloses further comprising means for providing an interface configured to receive user input and receive the quantum decryption outputs (interface to allow user set parameters and conversion data between classical-quantum computer [Rastunkov; ¶77-80, 104]).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastunkov-Broadbent combination in view of Kam et al. (US 20240048369 A1; hereinafter Kam).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Rastunkov-Broadbent combination does not explicilty discloses further comprising means for utilizing a quantum algorithm to analyze and decrypt cryptographic functions utilized in blockchain technology, enabling the efficient and effective verification or reconstruction of the pre-hash input values and the ability to analyze, decrypt, disrupt, or provide insights for blockchain systems; however, in a related and analogous art, Kam teaches these features.
In particular, Kam teaches encryption schemes may include classical encryption schemes (e.g., RSA-2048), post-quantum encryption schemes (e.g., Kyber-1024), DLT/blockchain encryption schemes, and the like. In certain embodiments, encryption schemes include KEMs and signature mechanisms, and applying the encryption schemes to the data. In certain embodiments, Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) represents a blockchain that includes a plurality of blocks. Each of the plurality of blocks may include a hash-based signature. In some embodiments, a single public key is generated using QRL and the single public key is leveraged to generate public/private key pairs. In some embodiments, QRL secures signatures used for transactions [Kam; ¶47, 85-88]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rastunkov-Broadbent combination with QRL in view of Kam. The motivation to apply quantum communication in a blockchain environment.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
1 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).