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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 and 03/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1
“a plurality of QKD apparatuses that performs…”
“a plurality of key management apparatuses that relays…”
“a plurality of hub apparatuses that performs…”
Since the claim recites “a plurality of QKD apparatuses”, the claim sets forth at least two QKD apparatuses. With respect to further limitation “one of the QKD apparatuses includes a first processor…”, this does recite a structural limitation of one of the QKD apparatuses, but it does not recite a structural recitation of the at least one other of the QKD apparatuses, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
With respect to the further limitation “the hub apparatus includes a second processor…” this does not further recite a structural limitation for any of the “a plurality of hub apparatuses” because it does not have sufficient antecedent basis. See rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) further in the Office Action.
A) Generic placeholder/Non-structural term: “apparatuses”
B) Functional language: “performs”, “relays” and Linking word: “that”
C) Not modified by sufficient structure: “QKD”, “key management”, “hub”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 it/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 it/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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “QKD apparatuses”, “key management apparatuses”, “hub apparatuses” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification filed 10/28/2024 discloses the following:
Para 0021: “An example of an overall configuration of a key exchange system in Example 1 will be described with reference to Fig. 2.”
Para 0023: “A hub apparatus 10 is an information processing apparatus (computer) that performs encrypted communication with a hub apparatus 10 existing in another hub.”
Para 0025: “A key management apparatus 20 is an information processing apparatus (computer) that manages a key shared among the QKD apparatuses 30 and performs key relay to a key management apparatus 20 existing in another hub.”
Para 0026: “A QKD apparatus 30 is an information processing apparatus (computer) that shares a QKD key with a QKD apparatus 30 existing in another hub via an optical transmission line by using the QKD protocol (for example, the BB84 scheme or the like) and executes various types of processing related thereto.”
Para 0103: “A hub apparatus 10, a key management apparatus 20, and a QKD apparatus 30 can be implemented by, for example, a hardware configuration of a computer 500 illustrated in Fig. 10.”
Para 0108: “Note that the hardware configuration of the computer 500 illustrated in Fig. 10 is an example, and the hardware configuration of the computer 500 is not limited thereto.”
Regarding, “QKD apparatuses”, the disclosure of para 0021, para 0026 and para 0108 describe an embodiment of the apparatus but discloses no definite structure of the apparatus.
Regarding, “key management apparatuses”, the disclosure of para 0021, para 0025 and para 0108 describe an embodiment of the apparatus but discloses no definite structure of the apparatus.
Regarding, “hub apparatuses”, the disclosure of para 0021, para 0023 and para 0108 describe an embodiment of the apparatus but discloses no definite structure of the apparatus.
In addition, mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623. See MPEP 2181(II)(B).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing 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
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 is rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hub apparatus" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by a general-purpose computer.
The Examiner notes that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO; See In re ZIetz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow); See also MPEP 2111.01. It is noted that claims 6-7 are directed towards “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing…”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to computer programs “for causing” services does not actually require the configuration or implementation of a computer (i.e. a computer programmed or designed to carry out the intended usage of the claim). Any general-purpose computer with sufficient hardware and instruction set would be operable/programmable to implement the claimed acts. Note that the claim limitation “for causing” suggests or makes optional - but does not require – the recited acts to be performed, nor does the claim language limit the claim to a particular structure; See MPEP 2111.04. Therefore, the claims are clearly anticipated by any general-purpose computing machine with sufficient hardware and instruction set for storing and executing the instructions.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doi et al. (USP App Pub 2021/0328784; hereinafter Doi).
Regarding claim 1, A key exchange system (Doi: paragraph [0029], “the application key is shared by the applications 30a and 30b”) comprising:
a quantum key distribution (QKD) network (Doi: paragraph [0032], “When one quantum cryptographic device 10c (relay node) is interposed, the number of QKD links (optical fibers) is two”) including
a plurality of QKD apparatuses (Doi: FIG. 2, quantum cryptographic device 10a and 10b) that performs exchange of a key by using a quantum key distribution protocol (Doi: paragraph [0025], “a quantum cryptographic device 10a (starting node) transmits photons that are the source of a quantum cryptographic key to a quantum cryptographic device 10b (terminal node) via a quantum key distribution (QKD) link”; FIG. 2, the transmission of quantum cryptographic key between device 20a and 20b contribute to the key exchange protocol of FIG. 2 to share application key; paragraph [0027], “the application key is shared by the application-key management devices 20a and 20b”), and
a plurality of key management apparatuses that relays the key (Doi: paragraph [0060], “When there are a plurality of relay nodes relaying a transmission path through which the application key is transmitted”; FIG. 2, application-key management device (relay node) 20c i.e., there may be a plurality of relay nodes along transmission path); and
a plurality of hub apparatuses (Doi: FIG. 2, application-key management device 20a and 20b) that performs encrypted communication by using the key received from the key management apparatuses (Doi: paragraph [0027], “the application-key management device 20a performs one time pad (OTP) encryption”; paragraph [0027], “The application-key management device 20b performs OTP decryption”), wherein
one of the QKD apparatuses (Doi: FIG. 2, quantum cryptographic device 10a; paragraph [0119], “FIG. 16 is a diagram illustrating an example of the hardware configuration of a principal portion of the quantum cryptographic communication device 10”) includes
a first processor (Doi: paragraph [0121], “The control device 301 executes a computer program”), and
a first memory storing program instructions that cause the first processor (Doi: paragraph [0121], “The control device 301 executes a computer program that is read out from the auxiliary storage device 303 to the main storage device 302. The main storage device 302 is a memory”) to,
in a case where the key is transmitted to an unreliable key management apparatus among the plurality of key management apparatuses (Doi: paragraph [0027], “The application-key management device 20a transmits the OTP-encrypted application key to the application-key management device 20b. The OTP-encrypted application key is transmitted and received via a transmission path (wired or wireless)”; FIG. 2, OTP-encrypted application key is transmitted from 20a to 20b via 20c), use a secret key shared in advance with a hub apparatus (Doi: FIG. 2, application-key management device (Terminal Node) 20b receives the secret quantum cryptographic key via QKD link 2. Device 20b corresponds to claimed hub apparatus; paragraph [0025], “The quantum cryptographic key (starting node) and the quantum cryptographic key (terminal node) are shared bit data and are identical. Then, the quantum cryptographic device 10a transmits the quantum cryptographic key (starting node) to an application-key management device 20a (starting node), and the quantum cryptographic device 10b transmits the quantum cryptographic key (terminal node) to an application-key management device 20b (terminal node).”) that receives the key via the unreliable key management apparatus (Doi: FIG. 2, device 20b receives OTP-encrypted application key from relay node device 20c), and transmit the key subjected to an exclusive OR with the secret key (Doi: paragraph [0027], “the application-key management device 20a performs one time pad (OTP) encryption using a quantum cryptographic key on the application key and generates an OTP-encrypted application key”; See references cited) to the unreliable key management apparatus (Doi: FIG. 2, device 20a transmits OTP-encrypted application key to relay node device 20c via transmission path), and
the hub apparatus (Doi: FIG. 2, application-key management device (terminal node) 20b) includes
a second processor, and
a second memory storing program instructions that cause the second processor to (Doi: paragraph [0133], “the novel embodiments described herein may be embodied in a variety of other forms; furthermore, various omissions, substitutions and changes in the form of the embodiments described herein may be made without departing from the spirit of the inventions”; paragraph [0027], “The application-key management device 20b performs OTP decryption”; See references cited),
in a case where the key is received from the unreliable key management apparatus among the plurality of key management apparatuses (Doi: FIG. 2, device 20b receives OTP-encrypted application key from relay node device 20c via transmission path), use the secret key to calculate an exclusive OR of the secret key and the key (Doi: paragraph [0027], “The application-key management device 20b performs OTP decryption using a quantum cryptographic key on the OTP-encrypted application key and decrypts the application key”).
Re. claims 3-4, 6-7, they recite analogous limitations as claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi in view of Burns et al. (USP App Pub 2023/0299949; hereinafter Burns).
Regarding claim 2, Doi teaches the key exchange system according to claim 1, wherein the secret key (Doi: paragraph [0025], “The quantum cryptographic device 10a generates a quantum cryptographic key (starting node) based on the transmitted photons, and the quantum cryptographic device 10b generates a quantum cryptographic key (terminal node) based on the received photons”)
Doi does not teach …is a key of post-quantum cryptography.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang does teach …is a key of post-quantum cryptography (Burns: claim 1, “A computer-implemented method of secure communications for a sender device comprising: encapsulating or encrypting a message using a post-quantum cryptographic algorithm and quantum key, QK, material derived from QK distribution with a receiver device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the quantum cryptographic key of Doi to incorporate the teachings of Wang to use the QKD method to distribute the key in a post quantum cryptographic environment. The motivation for doing so is to take advantage of each of the strengths of the protocols (Burns: paragraph [0007], “apparatus and system(s) of secure communications using a hybrid mechanism or algorithm based on a combination of using components of post-quantum cryptographic algorithms and quantum key distribution (QKD) to allow a resulting algorithm to deliver security determined by the sum of the strengths of these components”).
References Cited
Harrison et al. (USP App Pub 2007/0016794; hereinafter Harrison) is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that an OTP encryption method is an exclusive OR (XOR) operation on inputs (Harrison: paragraph [0059], “Consider, for example, the use of OTP data to encrypt a message. Normally, a message m is encrypted by XORing (Exclusive ORing) the message with an equivalent-length block of OTP data”).
Harrison is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that an OTP decryptor should most reasonably be interpreted as comprising a processor and memory (Harrison: claim 12, “A device for decrypting a message encrypted according to the method of claim 3, the device comprising a memory … and a data processor”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights