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 amendment filed 7/7/2026 for application 18/881,989.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are currently pending; Claims 1-3 and 5-9 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 10-20 have been added. Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent claims; claims 1-3 and 5-20 have been examined. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 8/4/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 8/4/2026 does not list US patent documents in a separate section, does not have a blank space next to each document to be considered, and lacks a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 2-8 is removed in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 6/2/2023, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted as follows: II. Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is not invoked: Claims 1 and 9 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant respectfully traverses this interpretation with respect to at least independent claim 9. The claimed "quantum transmitter" and "quantum receiver" connotes sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. §112(f). As stated in MPEP §2181(I.)(A.), "The term is not required to denote a specific structure or a precise physical structure to avoid the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See Watts, 232 F.3d at 880, 56 USPQ2d at 1838; Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 99 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the claim terms 'modernizing device' and 'computing unit' when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The following are examples of structural terms that have been found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: 'circuit,' 'detent mechanism,' 'digital detector,' 'reciprocating member,' 'connector assembly,' 'perforation,' 'sealingly connected joints,' and 'eyeglass hanger member."' (Emphasis added). Similarly, each of the claimed "quantum transmitter" and "quantum receiver" in claim 9 of the present application is a structural term that does not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Applicant therefore requests that the alleged interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) be withdrawn.
Examiner maintains the claim interpretations. The terms “functional components [] cooperate to perform; functional component adapted to connect…,” are interpreted in light of the disclosure.
Applicant asserted as follows: III. Claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. X103: Claims 1 and 9 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Martinelli (U.S. '337) in view of Maul (DE '300). Claims 2, 3 and 8 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Martinelli in view of Maul, and further in view of Jha (U.S. '927). Claims 4-7 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Martinelli in view of Maul and Jha, and further in view of Coady (U.S. '226). Applicant traverses these rejections. While the Office Action (pg. 10) relies on Coady for the teaching that components of a quantum computing system may be geographically remote from one another, Coady merely describes a distributed system architecture. It does not disclose or suggest that one or more functional components are provisioned in a module that is relocatable to a remote location relative to the remaining functional components, as now recited by independent claim 1 as amended. A geographically remote component is not, by virtue of being remotely located, a relocatable module. Accordingly, even if Martinelli, Maul, Jha and Coady were combined, the resulting combination would at most disclose physically separated modules, optical alignment movement, and geographically distributed components. The cited references do not teach or suggest a functional module that is spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remaining functional components, as required by amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully submits Martinelli discloses an optical system with functional components and newly cited Pugh discloses relocatable modules and spaced apart modules.
Applicant asserted as follows: Furthermore, the Office Action does not provide an adequate rationale why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Martinelli's modular QKD apparatus to arrive at the claimed arrangement. Maul is concerned with optical alignment in a projection lithography system, while Coady concerns geographically distributed quantum computing components for intrusion detection. Neither reference provides a reason to modify Martinelli so that one or more functional components are provided in a module that is relocatable to a remote location relative to the remaining functional components.
Examiner respectfully submits Martinelli discloses an optical system with functional components and Pugh discloses relocatable modules and spaced apart modules.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 272 5368 to schedule an interview.
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: “functional components [] cooperate to perform; functional component adapted to connect…,” recited in claims 1 and 9.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically discloses 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 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinelli (US20250080337), PCT filed March 11, 2022, in view of Pugh, Christopher J., Sarah Kaiser, Jean-Philippe Bourgoin, Jeongwan Jin, Nigar Sultana, Sascha Agne, Elena Anisimova et al. "Airborne demonstration of a quantum key distribution receiver payload." Quantum Science and Technology 2, no. 2 (2017): 024009.
Regarding claim 1, Martinelli discloses an apparatus for performing quantum key distribution, the apparatus comprising (Martinelli, paragraph 0060, modular quantum key distribution system);
a plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution (Martinelli, paragraph 0056, transmitting unit, photo source, retarder plate, actuator; paragraph 0058, receiving unit, stabilizer, retarder plat, actuator, beam splitter);
wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in a module (Martinelli, paragraph 0069, demodulation module 40 comprises a retarder plate 44; paragraph 0079, module 130 comprises a first retarder plate 1132 and a second retarder plate 134).
Martinelli does not explicitly disclose the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of the plurality of functional components.
However, in an analogous art, Pugh .discloses the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of the plurality of functional components (Pugh: first page, introduction, quantum source and transmitter are placed on the airborne platform; quantum receiver on airborne platform while keeping quantum source on the ground; first page, lines 17-20, source optics and electronics and computers located inside of a trailer; polarization optics located outside the trailer with cabling running through a window; ground station is relocatable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pugh with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli to include the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of the plurality of functional components to provide users with the benefits of performing quantum key distribution in an uplink configuration of an airplane (Pugh: abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Pugh discloses in which the functional component that is provisioned in the module is a light source (Pugh: first page, quantum source, optics).
Regarding claim 6, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Martinelli, Maul, Jha, and Coady disclose in which the remote module is located more than 1km from the remainder of the plurality of functional components (Pugh: FIG. 1, airborne platform and ground station are remote from each other).
Regarding claim 7, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Martinelli discloses in which the module may be connected to the apparatus by optical fibre (Martinelli, paragraph 0076, system 1100 includes source module 120, modulation module 130, demodulation module, and photodetection module operatively connected by an optical fibre).
Regarding claim 9, Martinelli discloses a system for performing quantum key distribution, the system comprising: (Martinelli, paragraph 0060, modular quantum key distribution system);
The quantum transmitter having a first plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum receiver (Martinelli, paragraph 0056, transmitting unit, photo source, retarder plate, actuator);
The quantum receiver having a second plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum transmitter (Martinelli, paragraph 0058, receiving unit, stabilizer, retarder plat, actuator, beam splitter);
wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of functional components is provisioned in a module (Martinelli, paragraph 0023, module can be replaced or maintained separately),
Martinelli does not explicitly disclose the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of that plurality of functional components.
However, in an analogous art, Pugh discloses the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of that plurality of functional components (Pugh: first page, introduction, quantum source and transmitter are placed on the airborne platform; quantum receiver on airborne platform while keeping quantum source on the ground; first page, lines 17-20, source optics and electronics and computers located inside of a trailer; polarization optics located outside the trailer with cabling running through a window; ground station is relocatable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pugh with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli to include the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of that plurality of functional components to provide users with the benefits of performing quantum key distribution in an uplink configuration of an airplane (Pugh: abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Martinelli discloses a method of performing quantum key distribution, the method comprising: (Martinelli, paragraph 0060, modular quantum key distribution system);
co-operating, by a first plurality of connected functional components of a quantum transmitter, to perform quantum key distribution with a quantum receiver; and (Martinelli, paragraph 0056, transmitting unit, photo source, retarder plate, actuator);
co-operating, by a second plurality of connected functional components of the quantum receiver, to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum transmitter (Martinelli, paragraph 0058, receiving unit, stabilizer, retarder plat, actuator, beam splitter);
wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of functional components is provisioned in a module (Martinelli, paragraph 0023, module can be replaced or maintained separately),
Martinelli does not explicitly disclose the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of that plurality of functional components.
However, in an analogous art, Pugh discloses the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of that plurality of functional components (Pugh: first page, introduction, quantum source and transmitter are placed on the airborne platform; quantum receiver on airborne platform while keeping quantum source on the ground; first page, lines 17-20, source optics and electronics and computers located inside of a trailer; polarization optics located outside the trailer with cabling running through a window; ground station is relocatable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pugh with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli to include the module being spaced apart and relocatable to a remote location relative to the remainder of that plurality of functional components to provide users with the benefits of performing quantum key distribution in an uplink configuration of an airplane (Pugh: abstract).
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinelli (US20250080337), PCT filed March 11, 2022, in view of Pugh, Christopher J., Sarah Kaiser, Jean-Philippe Bourgoin, Jeongwan Jin, Nigar Sultana, Sascha Agne, Elena Anisimova et al. "Airborne demonstration of a quantum key distribution receiver payload." Quantum Science and Technology 2, no. 2 (2017): 024009, and further in view of Jha (US20080126927), filed October 5, 2006.
Regarding claim 2, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose in which a single one of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in the module.
However, in an analogous art, Jha discloses in which a single one of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in the module (Jha, each component has its own housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jha with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include in which a single one of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in the module to provide users with the benefits of an intuitive interface (Jha: paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 3, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose in which each of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in a separate module.
However, in an analogous art, Jha discloses in which each of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in a separate module (Jha, each component has its own housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jha with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include n which each of the plurality of functional components is provisioned in a separate module to provide users with the benefits of an intuitive interface (Jha: paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 8, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose in which the module may comprise a separate, self-contained unit.
However, in an analogous art, Jha discloses in which the module may comprise a separate, self-contained unit (Jha, each component has its own housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jha with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include in which the module may comprise a separate, self-contained unit to provide users with the benefits of an intuitive interface (Jha: paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 10, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 9.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose in which the functional component that is provisioned in the module is a light source.
However, in an analogous art, Jha discloses in which the functional component that is provisioned in the module is a light source (Jha, paragraph 0033, each portable unit includes a light, the light is located within a housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jha with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include in which the functional component that is provisioned in the module is a light source to provide users with the benefits of an intuitive interface (Jha: paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 11, Martinelli, Pugh, and Jha disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Martinelli and Pugh disclose in which the remote module is located more than 1km from the remainder of the plurality of functional components (Pugh: FIG. 1, airborne platform and ground station are remote from each other).
Regarding claim 12, Martinelli, Pugh, and Jha disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Martinelli discloses in which the module may be connected to the apparatus by optical fibre (Martinelli, paragraph 0076, system 1100 includes source module 120, modulation module 130, demodulation module, and photodetection module operatively connected by an optical fibre).
Claim 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinelli (US20250080337), PCT filed March 11, 2022, in view of Martinelli (US20250080337), PCT filed March 11, 2022, in view of Pugh, Christopher J., Sarah Kaiser, Jean-Philippe Bourgoin, Jeongwan Jin, Nigar Sultana, Sascha Agne, Elena Anisimova et al. "Airborne demonstration of a quantum key distribution receiver payload." Quantum Science and Technology 2, no. 2 (2017): 024009, and further in view of Tomaru (WO211099325), published August 18, 2011.
Regarding claim 13, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is a quantum transmitter, wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a control electronics module and/or a random number generator, and wherein the control electronics module and/or the random number generator serves a plurality of transmitter assemblies each having a photon source and a modulator.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the apparatus is a quantum transmitter, wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a control electronics module and/or a random number generator, and wherein the control electronics module and/or the random number generator serves a plurality of transmitter assemblies each having a photon source and a modulator (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include wherein the apparatus is a quantum transmitter, wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a control electronics module and/or a random number generator, and wherein the control electronics module and/or the random number generator serves a plurality of transmitter assemblies each having a photon source and a modulator to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Regarding claim 14, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the system according to claim 9.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more further quantum transmitters and one or more further quantum receivers located in a quantum node with the quantum transmitter and the quantum receiver, wherein a random number generator and a control electronics module are shared by, and connected to, the quantum transmitter, the one or more further quantum transmitters, the quantum receiver, and the one or more further quantum receivers.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses further comprising one or more further quantum transmitters and one or more further quantum receivers located in a quantum node with the quantum transmitter and the quantum receiver, wherein a random number generator and a control electronics module are shared by, and connected to, the quantum transmitter, the one or more further quantum transmitters, the quantum receiver, and the one or more further quantum receivers (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include further comprising one or more further quantum transmitters and one or more further quantum receivers located in a quantum node with the quantum transmitter and the quantum receiver, wherein a random number generator and a control electronics module are shared by, and connected to, the quantum transmitter, the one or more further quantum transmitters, the quantum receiver, and the one or more further quantum receivers to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Regarding claim 15, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is a quantum transmitter, and wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the apparatus is a quantum transmitter, and wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include wherein the apparatus is a quantum transmitter, and wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Regarding claim 16, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is a quantum receiver, and wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the apparatus is a quantum receiver, and wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include wherein the apparatus is a quantum receiver, and wherein the plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Regarding claim 17, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the system according to claim 9.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator, and wherein the second plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator, and wherein the second plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator, and wherein the second plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Regarding claim 19, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 18.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose further comprising performing quantum key distribution using one or more further quantum transmitters and one or more further quantum receivers located in a quantum node with the quantum transmitter and the quantum receiver, wherein a random number generator and a control electronics module are shared by, and connected to, the quantum transmitter, the one or more further quantum transmitters, the quantum receiver, and the one or more further quantum receivers.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses further comprising performing quantum key distribution using one or more further quantum transmitters and one or more further quantum receivers located in a quantum node with the quantum transmitter and the quantum receiver, wherein a random number generator and a control electronics module are shared by, and connected to, the quantum transmitter, the one or more further quantum transmitters, the quantum receiver, and the one or more further quantum receivers (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include further comprising performing quantum key distribution using one or more further quantum transmitters and one or more further quantum receivers located in a quantum node with the quantum transmitter and the quantum receiver, wherein a random number generator and a control electronics module are shared by, and connected to, the quantum transmitter, the one or more further quantum transmitters, the quantum receiver, and the one or more further quantum receivers to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Regarding claim 20, Martinelli and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 18.
Martinelli and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator, and wherein the second plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator, and wherein the second plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector (Tomaru, 20th page, line 31, through 21st page, line 9, 100 transmitter, 103 random number generator, 151 fluctuation light source, 161 modulators, 300 receiver, 311 photo detector, 381, photodetector, 1523, optical fiber, 1525, mirrors, 1530 fluctuation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomaru with the apparatus/ system of Martinelli and Pugh to include wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, and a random number generator, and wherein the second plurality of connected functional components comprises a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, and a second photodetector to provide users with the benefits of an encryption communication system improved in safety (Tomaru: technical field, 1st page, line 16, through 2nd page, line 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER J MALINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5368. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:30 MTWH.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 5712705002. 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.
/W.J.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights