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
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 23 September 2024.
2. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and claims 1, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
4. No Priority claimed.
Pre-Amendment
5. Preliminary amendment has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
6. The drawings filed on 23 September 204 are accepted by the examiner.
Priority date
7. Priority date has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Giera et al. (US Publication No. 20210083879), hereinafter Giera and in view of IDS filed by applicant, Adreian Kent (US Publication No. 20210111883), hereinafter Kent.
Regarding claim 1:
A method of timestamping an item at a timestamping device comprising a classical computing device and a quantum computing device, the method comprising: at the classical computing device (Giera, fig.1).
obtaining the item to be timestamped; and (Giera, Fig,1).
determining an input token based on the obtained item (Giera, ¶35, ¶53).
and at the quantum computing device (Giera, Fig.1): receiving a randomly generated quantum state from a verifier via a quantum channel wherein the randomly generated quantum state is received at time, t (Giera, ¶31).
and wherein the method comprises using the timestamping device to combine the randomly generated quantum state with the input token to produce a timestamp proof token associated with the time, t. wherein validation function indicates whether it is accurate. This indicator equates to “proof token”. (Giera, ¶15, 33, ¶30, ¶61).
Giera does not explicitly suggest, random quantum state, however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of quantum timestamping of Giera with the use of random quantum state disclosed in Kent to obtain a token comprising a sequence of classical measurement outcomes. The method further includes the step of presenting, at a second space-time point in the causal future of the first space-time point, the token in return for access to a resource. stated by Kent at ¶16.
Regarding claim 2:
Giera does not explicitly suggest, wherein using the timestamping device to combine the randomly generated quantum state with the input token comprises performing quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state such that at least some of the quantum operations are related to the input token wherein performing quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state comprises measuring the randomly generated quantum state to obtain the timestamp proof token associated with the time, t.; however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16, 43-44).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Giera and Kent applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3:
Giera does not explicitly suggest, wherein performing quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state such that at least some of the quantum operations are related to the input token comprises: measuring the randomly generated quantum state to obtain the timestamp proof token based on the input token by using the input token to determine a sequence of measurement bases for measuring the randomly generated quantum state; however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, claim 1).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Giera and Kent applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
further comprising: at the classical computing device, determining an input quantum state from the input token (Giera, ¶47).
at the quantum computing device preparing a quantum register in the input quantum state; and wherein the performing quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state received from the verifier such that at least some of the quantum operations are related to the input token further comprises using a sequence of quantum gates to mix the input quantum state and the randomly generated quantum state before measuring the randomly generated quantum state (Giera, ¶35).
Regarding claim 5:
Giera does not explicitly suggest, wherein performing quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state such that at least some of the quantum operations are related to the input token comprises: determining, at the classical computing device, a sequence of quantum operations based on the input token; and implementing, at the quantum computing device, the determined sequence of quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state before measuring the randomly generated quantum state; however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶43-44).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Giera and Kent applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6:
further comprising: sending: the timestamp proof token, and the item to be timestamped and/or the input token to the verifier within a threshold period of time of obtaining the timestamp proof token; and in response to sending the timestamp proof token to the verifier, receiving confirmation of receipt and/or validity of the timestamp proof token (Giera, ¶50, ¶25).
Regarding claim 7:
further comprising: receiving a request from the verifier for at least a portion of the timestamp proof token; and providing: the at least a portion of the timestamp proof token, and the item to be timestamped and/or the input token to the verifier in response to the request (Giera, ¶26).
Regarding claim 8:
wherein determining an input token based on the obtained item comprises: determining the input token in dependence on at least a portion of a previous timestamp proof token in the item to be timestamped or the input token (Giera, ¶15).
Regarding claim 9:
wherein determining the input token in dependence on at least a portion of a previous timestamp proof token in the item to be timestamped or the input token comprises: hashing the at least a portion of the previous timestamp proof token; and incorporating the hash of the at least a portion of the previous timestamp proof token in the item to be timestamped or the input token (Giera, abstract).
Regarding claim 10:
further comprising: storing the timestamp proof token on a distributed ledger; and wherein determining the input token in dependence on at least a portion of a previous timestamp proof token in the item to be timestamped or the input token comprises incorporating a previous entry of the distributed ledger in the item to be timestamped or the input token (Giera, ¶29).
Regarding claim 11:
wherein obtaining the item to be timestamped comprises: receiving an item to be timestamped prior to time, t; or when no item to be timestamped has been received by time, t, obtaining a predetermined value as the item to be timestamped (Giera, ¶26).
Regarding claim 12:
wherein receiving a randomly generated quantum state from a verifier comprises receiving a first randomly generated quantum state from a first source of the verifier and the method further comprises: at the quantum computing device (Giera, ¶26).
receiving a second randomly generated quantum state from a second source of the verifier via a quantum channel wherein the second randomly generated quantum state is received at time, t (Giera, ¶55) wherein: performing quantum operations on the randomly generated quantum state such that at least some of the quantum operations are related to the input token comprises performing quantum operations on the first and second randomly generated quantum states such that at least some of the quantum operations are related to the input token (Giera, ¶18).
and the first and second source of the verifier are spatially distributed around the timestamping device (Giera, ¶17).
Regarding claim 13:
A method, performed at a verifier, of providing a randomly generated quantum state to a timestamping device wherein the verifier comprises a classical computing device and a quantum computing device and the method comprises (Giera, fig.1).
at the quantum computing device (Giera, fig.1).
Giera does not explicitly suggest, preparing the randomly generated quantum state however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16).
and sending the randomly generated quantum state to the timestamping device (Kent, ¶16).and at the classical computing device (Giera, fig.1).
recording a representation of the randomly generated quantum state and (Giera, ¶32).
recording a time, t’, at which the randomly generated quantum state was sent to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of quantum timestamping of Giera with the use of random quantum state disclosed in Kent to obtain a token comprising a sequence of classical measurement outcomes. The method further includes the step of presenting, at a second space-time point in the causal future of the first space-time point, the token in return for access to a resource. stated by Kent at ¶16.
Regarding claim 14:
Giera does not explicitly suggest, further comprising, at the classical computing device of the verifier: receiving an indication of a time t, a timestamp proof token associated with the time t, and an item to be timestamped and/or an input token determining a time t’’ based on the time t wherein the time t’’ represents a time at which randomly generated quantum state received at the timestamping device at the time t would have been sent from the verifier; looking up a classical representation of a randomly generated quantum state associated with the time t’’; performing a classical simulation of quantum operations performed by the timestamping device; based on the results of the classical simulation verifying that time t’’ matches time t’. however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16, 43-44).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Giera and Kent applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15:
a classical computing device (Giera, Fig.1), configured to: obtain the item to be timestamped (Giera, Fig,1),
and determine an input token based on the obtained item (Giera, ¶53).
and a quantum computing device configured to: receive a randomly generated quantum state from a verifier via a quantum channel wherein the randomly generated quantum state is received at time, t (Giera, ¶56).
and wherein the timestamping device is configured to combine the randomly generated quantum state with the input token to produce a timestamp proof token associated with the time, t. . (Giera, ¶31
Giera does not explicitly suggest, random quantum state, however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of quantum timestamping of Giera with the use of random quantum state disclosed in Kent to obtain a token comprising a sequence of classical measurement outcomes. The method further includes the step of presenting, at a second space-time point in the causal future of the first space-time point, the token in return for access to a resource. stated by Kent at ¶16.
Regarding claim 16:
a quantum computing device configured to: prepare the randomly generated quantum state (Giera, ¶35); Giera does not explicitly suggest, random quantum state, however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16).
and send the randomly generated quantum state to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶50, ¶25).
and a classical computing device (Giera, Fig.1). configured to: record a representation of the randomly generated quantum state and a time, t’, at which the randomly generated quantum state was sent to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶15, 33, ¶30, ¶61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of quantum timestamping of Giera with the use of random quantum state disclosed in Kent to obtain a token comprising a sequence of classical measurement outcomes. The method further includes the step of presenting, at a second space-time point in the causal future of the first space-time point, the token in return for access to a resource. stated by Kent at ¶16.
Regarding claim 17:
configured to carry out a link-latency calibration to determine a latency for sending the randomly generated quantum state to the timestamping device, and to randomly repeat the link-latency calibration device (Giera, ¶28).
Regarding claim 18:
a timestamping device for timestamping an item and a verifier for providing a randomly generated quantum state to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶15, 33, ¶30, ¶61).
the timestamping device comprising: a classical computing device (Paczkowski, Fig.6), configured to: obtain the item to be timestamped (Giera, fig.1).
and determine an input token based on the obtained item (Giera, ¶35, ¶53).
and a quantum computing device configured to: receive the randomly generated quantum state from the verifier via a quantum channel wherein the randomly generated quantum state is received at time, t; (Giera, ¶31).
and wherein the timestamping device (Giera, Fig.1) is configured to combine the randomly generated quantum state with the input token to produce a timestamp proof token associated with the time, t (Giera, ¶15, 33, ¶30, ¶61).
the verifier comprising: a quantum computing device (Giera, Fig.1), Giera does not explicitly suggest, configured to: prepare the randomly generated quantum state however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16).
and send the randomly generated quantum state to a timestamping device (Giera, ¶50, ¶25).
and a classical computing device configured to: record a representation of the randomly generated quantum state and a time, t’, at which the randomly generated quantum state was sent to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶32, ¶35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of quantum timestamping of Giera with the use of random quantum state disclosed in Kent to obtain a token comprising a sequence of classical measurement outcomes. The method further includes the step of presenting, at a second space-time point in the causal future of the first space-time point, the token in return for access to a resource. stated by Kent at ¶16.
Regarding claim 19:
at a classical computing device (Giera, Fig.1), of the timestamping device: obtaining an item to be timestamped (Giera, Fig.1).
and determining an input token based on the obtained item (Giera, ¶35, ¶53).
and at the quantum computing device (Paczkowski, Fig.2): receiving a randomly generated quantum state from a verifier via a quantum channel wherein the randomly generated quantum state is received at time, t (Paczkowski, ¶30, ¶46, ¶50, ¶15).
and wherein the method comprises using the timestamping device to combine the randomly generated quantum state with the input token to produce a timestamp proof token associated with the time, t (Giera, ¶31).
and using the verifier, to provide the randomly generated quantum state ((Giera, ¶26) , Giera does not explicitly suggest, to the timestamping device by: at a quantum computing device of the verifier: preparing the randomly generated quantum state however, in a same field of endeavor Kent discloses this limitation (Kent, ¶16).
and sending the randomly generated quantum state to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶50, ¶25)..
and at a classical computing device (Giera, Fig.1). of the verifier: recording a representation of the randomly generated quantum state (Giera, ¶32).
and recoding a time, t’, at which the randomly generated quantum state was sent to the timestamping device (Giera, ¶55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of quantum timestamping of Giera with the use of random quantum state disclosed in Kent to obtain a token comprising a sequence of classical measurement outcomes. The method further includes the step of presenting, at a second space-time point in the causal future of the first space-time point, the token in return for access to a resource. stated by Kent at ¶16.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monjour Rahim whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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 CANANDA) or 571-272-1000.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890