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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on May 13th, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1, 3 and 9-14 have been amended.
Claim 15 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 13th, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not all persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, in page 7, that [w]ith respect to claim 9, Stapleton fails to disclose a "plurality of moving bodies" that each "receives an encryption key from a transmission apparatus and transmits the encryption key to a reception apparatus" and that "no communication is performed among the plurality of moving bodies," the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stapleton discloses, in Parag. [0026], that various drones of a drone network may deliver keys to host devices and remote devices. Further, Stapleton discloses, in Parag. [0056], that the host device (transmission apparatus) may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device (reception apparatus)).
Stapleton discloses, in Parag. [0054], that a host device may be in communication with one or more drones of a drone network (e.g., drones 102A-N). In some embodiments, the host device 106 may provide one or more cryptographic keys to the various drones of the drone network. The Examiner notes that the drones are in direct communication with the host device to receive cryptographic key(s); therefore, the art is interpreted such that the drones are not in communication with each other. See also Parag. [0032].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “part.” Such claim limitations are: Claim 1 recites the terms “an input/output part,” “a storage control part,” “a movement control part,” and “a notification part.” Claim 2 recites the terms “an abnormality sensing part,” and “a storage control part,” Claim 3 recites the terms “input/output part,” and “a storage control part,” Claim 4 recites the terms “an authentication request part.” Claim 5 recites the terms “input/output part.” Claim 6 recites the terms “input/output part.” Claim 9 recites the terms “an input/output part,” “a storage control part,” “a movement control part,” “a transmission apparatus communication part,” and “a reception apparatus communication part.” Claim 10 recites the terms “the transmission apparatus authentication part,” “the reception apparatus authentication part.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 9-13 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 terms “the transmission apparatus” and “the reception apparatus.”
Claim 9 recites (A) “an encryption key delivery system, comprising a transmission apparatus and a reception apparatus,” and (B) “an input/output part that receives an encryption key from a transmission apparatus and transmits the encryption key to a reception apparatus.”
It is unclear to which transmission apparatus and reception apparatus, in (A) or (B) “the transmission apparatus” and “the reception apparatus” are referring to.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend on the rejected claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stapleton et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0015980), hereinafter Stapleton.
Claim 9. Stapleton discloses an encryption key delivery system, comprising:
a transmission apparatus; a reception apparatus, and a plurality of moving bodies (See Parag. [0026]; various drones of a drone network may deliver keys to host devices and remote devices. See also Parag. [0032-0033]),
wherein each of the plurality of moving bodies comprises: at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory (See Parag. [0036]; A drone (e.g., any one of drones 102A-N) may be embodied by one or more computing devices, shown as apparatus 200 in FIG. 2. The apparatus 200 may include processor 202, memory 204, communications hardware 206…) to implement:
an input/output part that receives an encryption key from a transmission apparatus and transmits the encryption key to a reception apparatus (See Parag. [0056]; the host device (transmission apparatus) may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device (reception apparatus));
a storage control part that controls storage of the encryption key in a storage part (See Parag. [0034]; A storage device may store information relied upon during operation of the drone, such as various cryptographic keys, key check values. See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like))); and
a movement control part that moves the moving body to the reception apparatus after receiving the encryption key from the transmission apparatus (See Parag. [0056]; the host device may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device),
the storage control part stores the encryption key in the storage part upon receiving the encryption key from the transmission apparatus and erases the encryption key stored in the storage part in a case where an abnormality is detected (See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like)). To combat potential eavesdropping or unauthorized access of the cryptographic key during travel, the drone may comprise security circuitry that is configured to detect anomalous conditions of the drone and, if necessary, alter the cryptographic key to avoid the key being compromised. See Parag. [0077]; altering the cryptographic key may comprise deleting the cryptographic key. See Parag. [0045]),
each of the plurality of moving bodies is configured to receive the encryption key from the transmission apparatus and directly transmit the encryption key to the reception apparatus, the transmission apparatus comprises at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: a transmission apparatus communication part that transmits the encryption keys to the plurality of moving bodies, and the reception apparatus comprises at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to implement: a reception apparatus communication part that receives the encryption keys from the plurality of moving bodies (See Parag. [0056]; the host device (transmission apparatus) may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device (reception apparatus). See Parag. [0026]; various drones of a drone network may deliver keys to host devices and remote devices. See also Parag. [0032-0033]), and
no communication is performed among the plurality of moving bodies (See Parag. [0054]; a host device (e.g., host device 106, as described above in connection with FIG. 1E) may be in communication with one or more drones of a drone network (e.g., drones 102A-N). In some embodiments, the host device 106 may provide one or more cryptographic keys to the various drones of the drone network. i.e., the drones are in direct communication with the host device to receive cryptographic key(s); therefore, the art is interpreted such that the drones are not in communication with each other. See also Parag. [0032]).
Claim 10. Stapleton discloses the encryption key delivery system according to claim 9,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the transmission apparatus further comprises a transmission apparatus authentication part that authenticates the moving body, the reception apparatus further comprises a reception apparatus authentication part that authenticates the plurality of moving bodies, the transmission apparatus communication part transmits the encryption keys to the plurality of moving bodies in a case where the transmission apparatus authentication part succeeds in authentication, and the reception apparatus communication part receives the encryption keys from the plurality of moving bodies in a case where the reception apparatus authentication part succeeds in authentication (See Parag. [0029]; an example scenario in which a drone 102 may communicate with another drone 103 of a drone network in order to establish secure communication between a host device 101 and a remote device 105. In this regard, a first drone 102 may deliver a cryptographic key to a second drone 103 so the first drone and the second drone can communicate securely. In some embodiments, the second drone 103 may deliver another cryptographic key to a third drone, such that the second drone and the third drone can communicate securely, and so the first drone 102 and third drone can communicate securely via the second drone 103. This sequential process may continue indefinitely to produce an authenticated “mesh” of drones that can be leveraged to enable any endpoint remote device 105 and host device 101 to communicate securely. See Parag. [0026]; various drones of a drone network may deliver keys to host devices and remote devices. See also Parag. [0032-0033] [0061]).
Claim 11. Stapleton discloses the encryption key delivery system according to claim 9,
Stapleton further discloses the system wherein the plurality of moving bodies receive a same encryption key from the transmission apparatus (See Parag. [0054]; the host device 106 may provide one or more cryptographic keys to the various drones of the drone network. In some embodiments, a host device 106 may generate and provide a communal drone relay key to a plurality of drones of the drone network).
Claim 12. Stapleton discloses the encryption key delivery system according to claim 9,
Stapleton further discloses the system wherein the encryption keys which the plurality of moving bodies receive from the transmission apparatus include different encryption keys (See Parag. [0054]; the host device 106 may provide one or more cryptographic keys to the various drones of the drone network).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0015980), hereinafter Stapleton, in view of Yoshida et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0069983), hereinafter Yoshida.
Claim 1. Stapleton discloses a moving body (see drone(s) 102A-N) comprising:
at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory (see Parag. [0036]; A drone (e.g., any one of drones 102A-N) may be embodied by one or more computing devices, shown as apparatus 200 in FIG. 2. The apparatus 200 may include processor 202, memory 204, communications hardware 206…) to implement:
an input/output part that receives an encryption key from a transmission apparatus and transmits the encryption key to a reception apparatus (See Parag. [0056]; the host device (transmission apparatus) may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device (reception apparatus));
a storage control part that controls storage of the encryption key in a storage part (See Parag. [0034]; A storage device may store information relied upon during operation of the drone, such as various cryptographic keys, key check values. See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like)));
a movement control part that moves the moving body to the reception apparatus after receiving the encryption key from the transmission apparatus (See Parag. [0056]; the host device may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device), and
wherein
the storage control part stores the encryption key in the storage part upon receiving the encryption key from the transmission apparatus and erases the encryption key stored in the storage part in a case where an abnormality is detected (See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like)). To combat potential eavesdropping or unauthorized access of the cryptographic key during travel, the drone may comprise security circuitry that is configured to detect anomalous conditions of the drone and, if necessary, alter the cryptographic key to avoid the key being compromised. See Parag. [0077]; altering the cryptographic key may comprise deleting the cryptographic key. See Parag. [0045]).
Stapleton doesn’t explicitly disclose a notification part, and the notification part notifies the transmission apparatus that the encryption key has been erased when the storage control part erases the encryption key stored in the storage part.
However, Yoshida discloses a notification part, and the notification part notifies the transmission apparatus that the encryption key has been erased when the storage control part erases the encryption key stored in the storage part (See Parag. [0173]; When the key management server 10 succeeds in deleting the key encryption key (A550), the key management server 10 notifies the encryption control unit 112 (i.e., within the storage apparatus 100; See Fig. 2) of the successful deletion of the key encryption key. See Parag. [0051]; The encryption control unit 112 of the storage apparatus 100 and the key management server 10 perform transmission and reception of information regarding the key encryption key 2 therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching, taught by Stapleton, to include a notification part, and the notification part notifies the transmission apparatus that the encryption key has been erased when the storage control part erases the encryption key stored in the storage part, as taught by Yoshida. This would be convenient for improving system reliability by allowing data to be restored in a storage apparatus that encrypts data even if the corresponding information is lost (Yoshida, Parag. [0001]).
Claim 2. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to further implement: an abnormality sensing part that detects the abnormality and notifies the storage control part (See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like)). To combat potential eavesdropping or unauthorized access of the cryptographic key during travel, the drone may comprise security circuitry that is configured to detect anomalous conditions of the drone and, if necessary, alter the cryptographic key to avoid the key being compromised).
Claim 4. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to further implement: an authentication request part that requests the transmission apparatus and the reception apparatus to authenticate the moving body prior to transmitting and receiving the encryption key (See Parag. [0029]; an example scenario in which a drone 102 may communicate with another drone 103 of a drone network in order to establish secure communication between a host device 101 and a remote device 105. In this regard, a first drone 102 may deliver a cryptographic key to a second drone 103 so the first drone and the second drone can communicate securely. In some embodiments, the second drone 103 may deliver another cryptographic key to a third drone, such that the second drone and the third drone can communicate securely, and so the first drone 102 and third drone can communicate securely via the second drone 103. This sequential process may continue indefinitely to produce an authenticated “mesh” of drones that can be leveraged to enable any endpoint remote device 105 and host device 101 to communicate securely).
Claim 5. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the input/output part communicates the encryption key with the transmission apparatus and the reception apparatus using a laser beam (See Parag. [0040]; the communications hardware 206 may be any means suitable for transmitting data such as cryptographic keys, encrypted data, and/or the like, such as a device or circuitry embodied in either hardware or a combination of hardware and software that is configured to receive and/or transmit data from/to any other device, circuitry, or module in communication with the apparatus 200 (e.g., remote devices 108A-N, other drones 102A-N, and/or host device 106. In this regard, the communications hardware 206 may include, for example, interfaces for enabling communications with other devices, such as one or more ports (e.g., a laser port, a fiber-optic cable port, and/or the like). See Parag. [0061]; a connection between the drone and the first device may be established using communications hardware 206 interacting with corresponding communications hardware of the remote device. For example, the connection may be a physical connection, such as via a fiber-optic cable. As another example, the connection may be a laser connection. In some embodiments, the connection may a wireless connection, such that the connection may be established via a secure spectrum, channel, or the like).
Claim 6. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the input/output part communicates the encryption key with the transmission apparatus and the reception apparatus using a quantum cryptography communication (See Parag. [0002]; cryptographic keys may be generated and distributed to devices via a process known as Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). See Parag. [0026]; utilize a plurality of drones to efficiently navigate to remote locations and leverage quantum-based hardware to generate and securely inject cryptographic keys into multiple devices across different remote locations and correspondingly securely provide the cryptographic keys to a host device. In various embodiments, the host device and drone network may establish a unique key per remote device and/or per drone for secure communications. Since only each remote device and the host have access to the corresponding cryptographic key, each respective device and the host can mutually authenticate using keys for which there is a high assurance level that no other party will be able to access).
Claim 7. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the abnormality includes at least one selected from the group consisting of an abnormal value, an interference of another object with the moving body, data transmission between the moving body and another device, and an abnormality resulting from analysis of log information of the moving body (See Parag. [0076]; The anomalous condition may be detected based on a variety of factors. As one example, an anomalous condition may be detected in an instance in which the drone has deviated from a route defined by the itinerary data. As another example, an anomalous condition may be detected in an instance in which an unknown device has connected to or is attempting to connect to the drone),
wherein the abnormal value is at least one selected from the group consisting of abnormal values of vibration, temperature, voltage, position, movement speed, and movement time of the moving body (See Parag. [0076]; The anomalous condition may be detected based on a variety of factors. As one example, an anomalous condition may be detected in an instance in which the drone has deviated from a route defined by the itinerary data. As another example, an anomalous condition may be detected in an instance in which an unknown device has connected to or is attempting to connect to the drone).
Claim 8. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the moving body is a flying body (See Parag. [0036]; A drone (e.g., any one of drones 102A-N)).
Claim 14. Stapleton discloses an encryption key delivery method executed by a computer loaded on a moving body (see Parag. [0036]; A drone (e.g., any one of drones 102A-N) may be embodied by one or more computing devices, shown as apparatus 200 in FIG. 2. The apparatus 200 may include processor 202, memory 204, communications hardware 206…), the encryption key delivery method, comprising:
receiving an encryption key from a transmission apparatus (See Parag. [0056]; the host device (transmission apparatus) may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device (reception apparatus));
storing the encryption key received in a storage part (See Parag. [0034]; A storage device may store information relied upon during operation of the drone, such as various cryptographic keys, key check values. See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like));
moving the moving body toward a reception apparatus after storing the encryption key (See Parag. [0056]; the host device may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device);
erasing the encryption key stored in the storage part in a case where an abnormality of the moving body is detected during a movement (See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like)). To combat potential eavesdropping or unauthorized access of the cryptographic key during travel, the drone may comprise security circuitry that is configured to detect anomalous conditions of the drone and, if necessary, alter the cryptographic key to avoid the key being compromised. See Parag. [0077]; altering the cryptographic key may comprise deleting the cryptographic key. See Parag. [0045]); and
transmitting the encryption key stored in the storage part to the reception apparatus, upon arriving at a destination area (See Parag. [0056]; the host device may generate the cryptographic key itself (e.g., via an in-house QRNG) and provide it to the drone, after which the drone may travel to the remote device and provide the cryptographic key to the remote device).
Stapleton doesn’t explicitly disclose notifying that the encryption key has been erased when the encryption key stored in the storage part is erased.
However, Yoshida discloses notifying that the encryption key has been erased when the encryption key stored in the storage part is erased (See Parag. [0173]; When the key management server 10 succeeds in deleting the key encryption key (A550), the key management server 10 notifies the encryption control unit 112 (i.e., within the storage apparatus 100; See Fig. 2) of the successful deletion of the key encryption key. See Parag. [0051]; The encryption control unit 112 of the storage apparatus 100 and the key management server 10 perform transmission and reception of information regarding the key encryption key 2 therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching, taught by Stapleton, to include notifying that the encryption key has been erased when the encryption key stored in the storage part is erased, as taught by Yoshida. This would be convenient for improving system reliability by allowing data to be restored in a storage apparatus that encrypts data even if the corresponding information is lost (Yoshida, Parag. [0001]).
Claim 16. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 2 set forth above, as it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 17. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 4 set forth above, as it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 18. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 5 set forth above, as it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 19. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 6 set forth above, as it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 20. The applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 7 set forth above, as it is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0015980), hereinafter Stapleton; in view of Yoshida et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0069983), hereinafter Yoshida; and further in view of Ming et al. (Pub. No. WO 2016154945), hereinafter Ming.
Claim 3. Stapleton in view of Yoshida discloses the moving body according to claim 1,
Stapleton further discloses wherein the input/output part receives that the abnormality has been detected and notifies the storage control part; the storage control part erases the encryption key in a case where a notification indicating that the abnormality of the moving body has been detected (See Parag. [0045]; the apparatus 200 further comprises security circuitry 214 that detects anomalous conditions of a drone and alters cryptographic keys in response to a detection of an anomalous condition. The security circuitry 214 may utilize processor 202, memory 204, or any other hardware component included in the apparatus 200 to perform these operations, as described in connection with FIG. 5 below. The security circuitry 214 may further utilize communications hardware 206 to gather data from a variety of sources, may utilize input-output circuitry 208 to receive data from a user, and in some embodiments may utilize processor 202 and/or memory 204 to detect anomalous conditions and alter cryptographic keys. See Parag. [0075]; the drone may traverse some distance while possessing the cryptographic key (i.e., having the cryptographic key stored (e.g., in memory 204, storage device 106A, or the like)). To combat potential eavesdropping or unauthorized access of the cryptographic key during travel, the drone may comprise security circuitry that is configured to detect anomalous conditions of the drone and, if necessary, alter the cryptographic key to avoid the key being compromised. See Parag. [0077]; altering the cryptographic key may comprise deleting the cryptographic key).
Stapleton in view of Yoshida doesn’t explicitly disclose the input/output part receives that the abnormality has been detected from an external apparatus; the abnormality of the moving body has been detected is received from a monitor apparatus via the input/output part, and the monitor apparatus is provided separately from the moving body and monitors a state of the moving body to detect the abnormality.
However, Ming discloses the input/output part receives from an external apparatus that the abnormality has been detected; the abnormality of the moving body (UAV 108 ) has been detected is received from a monitor apparatus via the input/output part, and the monitor apparatus is provided separately from the moving body and monitors a state of the moving body to detect the abnormality (See Page 16 lines 38-53; a flight supervision module/subsystem 240 may be used to monitor flight of UAVs within an allocated airspace. The flight supervision module may be configured to detect when one or more UAVs deviate from a predetermined course. The flight supervision module may detect when one or more UAVs perform an unauthorized action, or an action that was not inputted by the user … The flight supervision module may issue a warning or alert to the unauthorized UAVs …The flight supervision module may utilize data collected by one or more sensors on-board the UAV. The flight supervision module may utilize data collected by one or more sensors off-board the UAV. The data may be collected by radar, photoelectric sensors, or acoustic sensors that ma monitor UAVs or other activity within an allocated airspace. The data may be collected by one or more base stations, docks, battery stations, geo-fencing devices, or networks. The data may be collected by stationary devices. The stationary devices may or may not be configured to physically interact with the UAVs (e.g., restore energy to the UAV, accept a delivery from a UAV, or provide repairs to the UAV). The data may be provided from wired or wireless communications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching, taught by Stapleton in view of Yoshida, to include the input/output part receives from an external apparatus that the abnormality has been detected; the abnormality of the moving body has been detected is received from a monitor apparatus via the input/output part, and the monitor apparatus is provided separately from the moving body and monitors a state of the moving body to detect the abnormality, as taught by Ming. This would be convenient for to aid in tracking UAV usage (Ming, Page 1 lines 23-29).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0015980), hereinafter Stapleton, in view of Ferguson (Pub. No. US 2023/0020135).
Claim 13. Stapleton discloses the encryption key delivery system according to claim 9,
Stapleton doesn’t explicitly disclose the encryption key delivery system further comprising: a charging processing apparatus that comprises at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: collect parameters related to delivery of the encryption keys by the plurality of moving bodies, calculate a charge amount based on the parameters, and perform a charging process, wherein the parameters include for each of the plurality of moving bodies, at least one of a number of routes, a delivery distance, a number of deliveries, a data amount, and non-delivery information charging generated by the encryption key delivery system and performs charging.
However, Ferguson discloses a charging processing apparatus that comprises at least a processor; and a memory in circuit communication with the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: collect parameters related to delivery of the encryption keys by the plurality of moving bodies, calculate a charge amount based on the parameters, and perform a charging process, wherein the parameters include for each of the plurality of moving bodies, at least one of a number of routes, a delivery distance, a number of deliveries, a data amount, and non-delivery information charging generated by the encryption key delivery system and performs charging (See Parag. [0072]; The UAV profile generator 408 is generally responsible for generating one or more UAV profiles. A “UAV profile” as described herein refers to one or more attributes and values of a particular UAV. For example, a UAV profile may include attributes of: a weight carrying capacity of a first UAV, one or more dimension carrying capacities of the first UAV (e.g., the widest or longest parcel that the first UAV can carry), a flight distance capability of the first UAV, a release mechanism type of the first UAV, a weather grade indicator of the first UAV (e.g., indicating whether it is suited for snow, rain, or the like), a battery profile (e.g., # of charge cycles, age, mAh, performance attributes), as attributes of the battery could impact the performance/capabilities of the UAV, cost of operation or mission (e.g., in terms of fuel or money), certifications and regulatory/legal compliance requirements for the UAV, a noise profile indicating a noise level (e.g., in dB) a UAV is, an identity of the manufacturer and the owner of the UAV, and/or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching, taught by Stapleton, to include collect parameters related to delivery of the encryption keys by the plurality of moving bodies, calculate a charge amount based on the parameters, and perform a charging process, wherein the parameters include for each of the plurality of moving bodies, at least one of a number of routes, a delivery distance, a number of deliveries, a data amount, and non-delivery information charging generated by the encryption key delivery system and performs charging, as taught by Ferguson. This would be convenient for to select the correct UAV that fits a particular mission or delivery based on certain requirements (e.g., distance) of the mission (Ferguson, Parag. [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to encryption key delivery technology by a moving body.
Minamimoto et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0297248) - related to a technique for controlling a storage device; a notification unit 123 notifies the host 2 that the erasure of the first encryption key generation information 51A succeeds (S104), and the first cryptographic erase process of FIG. 8 ends (See Parag. [0002][0083]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHIZLANE MAAZOUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8118. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 7:30-5 PM.
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, Philip J Chea can be reached on 571-272-3951. 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.
/GHIZLANE MAAZOUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
/PHILIP J CHEA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights