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 Office Action is in response to the U.S. patent application 18863455 filed on November 6, 2024, as well as the Preliminary Amendments filed on November 6, 2024, and June 27, 2025.
Of prior claims 1-7: claim 6 was canceled; claim 8 was added; claims 1-5 and 7 were amended; claims 1, 4 and 5 are independent claims. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-8 are pending, and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on November 6, 2024, and May 7, 2026, comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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: “plurality of QKD apparatuses that performs…”, “plurality of AKD apparatuses that performs …,” “key management apparatus that relays …,” “plurality of hub apparatuses that performs …”, “first memory storing first program instructions that cause …”, “second memory storing second program instructions that cause …”, recited in claims 1, 4 and 5.
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 § 102
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun et al. (“Braun”; ES2949426T3 (English translation)).
Per claim 1: Braun anticipated a key exchange system (Braun Abstract, “QKD system”) comprising:
a quantum key distribution (QKD) network (Braun page 5, second last paragraph, “QKD network”) including
a plurality of QKD apparatuses that performs exchange of a key (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) by using a quantum key distribution protocol (Braun page 3, see within “In general…” paragraph, “can request and receive quantum secure keys on all QKD endpoints. of a network”; Braun paragraph spanning pages 2-3, “the QKD system is of particular importance. The protocols used for this key management have in particular the task of:1. store the generated QKD keys securely in a local keystore, 2. provide applications with secure keys for encryption of user data, 3. Provide key forwarding functions”), and
a key management apparatus that relays the key (Braun page 11, see within “Get Keys”paragraph,,“manufacturer-specific key management then delivers to the provider-specific key management all keys generated up to that point with the neighboring nodes”); and
a plurality of hub apparatuses (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) that performs encrypted communication by using the key received from the key management apparatus (Braun page 3, see within “In general …” paragraph, “applications and/or users - to the extent that they are users of these applications - can request and receive quantum secure keys on all QKD endpoints. of a network, which allow symmetric encryption of user data during its transmission to any other QKD endpoint”), wherein
each of the QKD apparatuses includes
a first processor (Braun page 14, see within “a structural level (1) …” paragraph, “at least one QKD server (5; 5') with a key memory”; Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”), and
a first memory storing first program instructions (Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”) that cause the first processor to
encrypt the key by using a public key of one of the hub apparatuses in a case where the key is exchanged with another QKD apparatus by using the quantum key distribution protocol (Braun page 4, see within “According to the invention …” paragraph, “quantum keys that are transmitted from one structural level to another within the QKD-capable network node are encrypted in a quantum-safe manner and transmitted using a PQC encryption method”), and
transmit the encrypted key to the key management apparatus (Braun page 13, last paragraph, “one or more quantum keys within the network node, namely from the structural level (1) of the manufacturer-specific key management (6; 6') for storage in a key store (7; 7') to the structural level (2) of the provider-specific key management (8; 8') or from the structural level (2) of the provider-specific key management (8; 8') for application data encryption to application level (3), are encrypted in a quantum-safe manner in each case and transmitted using a PQC encryption procedure”), and
each of the hub apparatuses includes
a second processor (Braun page 14, see within “a structural level (1) …” paragraph, “at least one QKD server (5; 5') with a key memory”; Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”), and
a second memory storing second program instructions (Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”) that cause the second processor to
decrypt the encrypted key by using a secret key corresponding to the public key in a case where the encrypted key is received from the key management apparatus (Braun page 11, second last paragraph, “post-quantum signature protocols are used. In this case, the private and public keys are generated with PQC procedures on the servers and a known message is signed with the sender's private key. After Upon receipt, the recipient can check the signature with the sender's public key”).
Per claim 2: Braun anticipated the key exchange system according to claim 1. Braun further anticipated an arrangement wherein the public key and the secret key are keys of post-quantum cryptography (Braun page 11, second last paragraph, “the private and public keys are generated with PQC procedures on the servers”).
Per claim 3: Braun anticipated the key exchange system according to claim 1. Braun further anticipated an arrangement wherein the second program instructions further cause the second processor to share the secret key with another hub apparatus by using a key encapsulation mechanism (Braun page 6, first paragraph, “quantum key used for symmetric encryption is previously exchanged between the two structural levels as a shared secret using a PQC key encapsulation procedure”) based on post-quantum cryptography.
Per claim 4: Braun anticipated a quantum key distribution (QKD) apparatus (Braun Abstract, “network node”) in a key exchange system (Braun Abstract, “QKD system”) including: a QKD network (Braun page 5, second last paragraph, “QKD network”) including a plurality of QKD apparatuses that performs exchange of a key (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) by using a quantum key distribution protocol (Braun page 3, see within “In general…” paragraph, “can request and receive quantum secure keys on all QKD endpoints. of a network”; Braun paragraph spanning pages 2-3, “the QKD system is of particular importance. The protocols used for this key management have in particular the task of:1. store the generated QKD keys securely in a local keystore, 2. provide applications with secure keys for encryption of user data, 3. Provide key forwarding functions”) and a key management apparatus that relays the key (Braun page 11, see within “Get Keys”paragraph,,“manufacturer-specific key management then delivers to the provider-specific key management all keys generated up to that point with the neighboring nodes”); and a plurality of hub apparatuses (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) that performs encrypted communication by using the key received from the key management apparatus (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”), the QKD apparatus comprising:
a processor (Braun page 14, “a structural level (1) …” paragraph, “at least one QKD server (5; 5') with a key memory”); and
a memory storing program instructions (Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”) that cause the processor to:
encrypt the key by using a public key of one of the hub apparatuses in a case where the key is exchanged with another QKD apparatus by using the quantum key distribution protocol (Braun page 4, see within “According to the invention …” paragraph, “quantum keys that are transmitted from one structural level to another within the QKD-capable network node are encrypted in a quantum-safe manner and transmitted using a PQC encryption method”); and
transmit the encrypted key to the key management apparatus (Braun page 13, last paragraph, “one or more quantum keys within the network node, namely from the structural level (1) of the manufacturer-specific key management (6; 6') for storage in a key store (7; 7') to the structural level (2) of the provider-specific key management (8; 8') or from the structural level (2) of the provider-specific key management (8; 8') for application data encryption to application level (3), are encrypted in a quantum-safe manner in each case and transmitted using a PQC encryption procedure”).
Per claim 5: Braun anticipated a hub apparatus (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) in a key exchange system (Braun Abstract, “QKD system” including: a quantum key distribution (QKD) network (Braun page 5, second last paragraph, “QKD network”) including a plurality of QKD apparatuses that performs exchange of a key (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) by using a quantum key distribution protocol (Braun page 3, see within “In general…” paragraph, “can request and receive quantum secure keys on all QKD endpoints. of a network”; Braun paragraph spanning pages 2-3, “the QKD system is of particular importance. The protocols used for this key management have in particular the task of:1. store the generated QKD keys securely in a local keystore, 2. provide applications with secure keys for encryption of user data, 3. Provide key forwarding functions”) and a key management apparatus that relays the key (Braun page 11, see within “Get Keys”paragraph,,“manufacturer-specific key management then delivers to the provider-specific key management all keys generated up to that point with the neighboring nodes”); and a plurality of hub apparatuses (Braun page 3, second last paragraph “exchange of quantum keys within the nodes of the QKD network”) that performs encrypted communication by using the key received from the key management apparatus (Braun page 3, see within “In general …” paragraph, “applications and/or users - to the extent that they are users of these applications - can request and receive quantum secure keys on all QKD endpoints. of a network, which allow symmetric encryption of user data during its transmission to any other QKD endpoint”), the hub apparatus comprising:
a processor (Braun page 14, see within “a structural level (1) …” paragraph, “at least one QKD server (5; 5') with a key memory”; Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”); and
a memory (Braun page 8, see within “Regarding the issue …” paragraph, “local memory”) storing program instructions that cause the processor to:
generate a public key and a secret key by using predetermined public key cryptography (Braun page 11, second last paragraph, “private and public keys are generated with PQC procedures on the servers and a known message is signed with the sender's private key. After Upon receipt, the recipient can check the signature with the sender's public key”);
distribute the public key to the plurality of QKD apparatuses (Braun page 4, see within “According to the invention …” paragraph, “quantum keys that are transmitted from one structural level to another within the QKD-capable network node are encrypted in a quantum-safe manner and transmitted using a PQC encryption method”); and
decrypt the key by using the secret key in a case where the key encrypted by a corresponding one of the QKD apparatuses by using the public key is received from the key management apparatus (Braun page 11, second last paragraph, “private and public keys are generated with PQC procedures on the servers and a known message is signed with the sender's private key. After Upon receipt, the recipient can check the signature with the sender's public key”).
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 of this title, 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (“Braun”; ES2949426T3 (English translation)) in view of Webb et al. (“Webb”; US20240333485A1).
Per claim 7: Braun anticipated the QKD apparatus of claim 4. Braun did not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the QKD apparatus of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Webb disclosed a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as a QKD apparatus (Webb para. [0017], “The methods described herein may be performed by software in machine readable form on a tangible storage medium e.g. in the form of a computer program comprising computer program code means adapted to perform all the steps of any of the methods described herein when the program is run on a computer and where the computer program may be embodied on a computer readable medium. Examples of tangible (or non-transitory) storage media include disks, thumb drives, memory cards etc. and do not include propagated signals. The software can be suitable for execution on a parallel processor or a serial processor such that the method steps may be carried out in any suitable order, or simultaneously.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Braun to include, as taught by Webb, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as a QKD apparatus. Motivation for modifying would have been to adopt a well-known non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program embodiment, in order to increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Braun/Webb arrangement within the security field.
Per claim 7: Braun anticipated the hub apparatus of claim 5. Braun did not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the hub apparatus of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Webb disclosed a A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as a hub apparatus (Webb para. [0017], “The methods described herein may be performed by software in machine readable form on a tangible storage medium e.g. in the form of a computer program comprising computer program code means adapted to perform all the steps of any of the methods described herein when the program is run on a computer and where the computer program may be embodied on a computer readable medium. Examples of tangible (or non-transitory) storage media include disks, thumb drives, memory cards etc. and do not include propagated signals. The software can be suitable for execution on a parallel processor or a serial processor such that the method steps may be carried out in any suitable order, or simultaneously.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Braun to include, as taught by Webb, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as a hub apparatus. Motivation for modifying would have been to adopt a well-known non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program embodiment, in order to increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Braun/Webb arrangement within the security field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul J Skwierawski whose telephone number is (571)272-2642. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00am-3:30pm weekdays.
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 supervisory primary examiner (SPE) Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/Paul Skwierawski/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights