DETAILED ACTION
-Claims 1, 15, 16, and 20 are amended.
-Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed July 9, 2026, have been fully considered.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
With respect to Claim 1: Applicant first argues that Manevich ¶ [0165] and ¶ [0171] do not disclose quantum IoT devices. The Examiner disagrees. Manevich ¶ [0171] discloses users that "create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons," and ¶ [0165] discloses IoT devices that write directly to the blockchain. As noted in the Examiner's Note of record, devices that create a QKD are interpreted as quantum devices, and the IoT devices of Manevich are therefore interpreted as quantum IoT devices.
Applicant next argues that Manevich ¶ [0098] discloses only that nodes verify a transaction against rules previously established by the blockchain creators, and therefore does not teach that a device participates in "determining" security rules. The Examiner disagrees. The claim does not recite that a device creates or authors a security rule. "Determining" a rule is interpreted as identifying the rule to be applied, not as creating it. Manevich ¶ [0098] discloses that the nodes verify a transaction "based on rules (which may be pre-defined or dynamically allocated)" and that "the nodes 354 determine if the transactions are valid based on a set of network rules." The nodes identify and apply the applicable rules, and a node that has received a quantum key is enabled to do so (Manevich ¶ [0170] to ¶ [0171]). The feature Applicant relies on, creating a rule, is not recited in the claim. Claim 1 remains rejected.
With respect to Claim 10: Applicant argues neither Mardikar ¶ [0093] nor Manevich ¶ [0171] discloses a "decoy form that, despite execution, does not allow access to the quantum key," and that a decoy form is distinct from a honeypot. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mardikar ¶ [0093] discloses that any node identifying another as acting suspiciously "may cast a vote to isolate," and that "the compromise assessment smart contract may adjust the clearance attribute for the suspicious node and thereby prevent its access to the larger distributed ledger 1003”. The suspicious device remains engaged with the system while its access is substantively restricted, consistent with the claimed decoy form that, despite execution, does not allow access. Manevich ¶ [0171] establishes the underlying quantum key mechanics to which this restriction applies. Claim 10 remains rejected.
With respect to Claim 16: Applicant argues (1) the quantum IoT device citation is incorrect, and (2) the new limitation, the aggregator applying "strategic models for optimal resource distribution at the network," distinguishes the claim. As to (1), the rejection is maintained per the Examiner's Note that devices capable of creating a QKD are interpreted as quantum devices. As to (2), the trained AI/ML model already relied upon (Mardikar ¶ [0008], ¶ [0144]) constitutes the claimed "strategic model." Chainani discloses this model applied to resource distribution: "the deep learning model's predictive capabilities allow for proactive infrastructure planning, reducing resource wastage and improving overall system performance. The automatic allocation of processing unit resources based on optimized recommendations streamlines operations" (Chainani, para. 8). It would have been obvious to modify Manevich in view of Mardikar with Chainani because Chainani provides "an improved system and method for AI workload placement that ensures optimal resource utilization, enhanced visibility, and seamless automation across multi-vendor environments" (Chainani, para. 6). Claim 16 remains rejected.
With respect to Claim 20: Applicant's arguments are similar to those presented for claim 1. Therefore, the responses provided above for claim 1 are equally applicable. Claim 20 remains rejected.
With respect to Claims 2, 4, 6, 11: Applicant's arguments rest solely on the allowability of claim 1 (or, for claim 11, claim 10). As claims 1 and 10 remain rejected, claims 2, 4, 6, and 11 remain rejected for the reasons of record.
With respect to Claims 3, 5, 7-9, 12-15, 17-19: Applicant's arguments rest solely on the allowability of claim 1 or claim 16. As claims 1 and 16 remain rejected, these claims remain rejected for the reasons of record.
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 .
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:
(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.
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 is:
“Fraud alert system configured to…” in claim 12
“Aggregator for aggregating data” in claim 13
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
See specification para. [0014] for hardware support
See specification para. [0011-0015] for functional support
If applicant does not intend to have this 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 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 being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manevich et al (US Pub.No.2023/0059580) in view of Mardikar et al (US Pub.No.2025/0328634)
Claim 1. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses A system comprising: a network comprising a plurality of quantum Internet of Things (IoT) devices, wherein each of the plurality of quantum IoT devices comprises a respective quantum processor; (Manevich Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”)) (Par, (0165) “Adding IoT devices which write directly to the blockchain can, in certain cases (i.e. supply chain, healthcare, logistics, etc.), increase both the frequency and accuracy of the data being recorded.”)) (Examiner's Note: user devices that can create a QKD are interpreted as quantum devices)
A quantum key distribution application that is configured to distribute a quantum key to one or more of the plurality of quantum IoT devices; (Manevich Par.(0170) ” FIG. 8B illustrates an example 850 of a quantum-secure blockchain 852 which implements quantum key distribution (QKD) to protect against a quantum computing attack. In this example, blockchain users can verify each other's identities using QKD. This sends information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a sender and a receiver through the blockchain can be sure of each other's identity.”)) (Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”))
Wherein the quantum key distribution application comprises an [AI algorithm that is configured to] to select the one or more of the plurality of quantum IoT devices to which to distribute one or more copies of the quantum key; ) (Manevich Par.(0030)”Example embodiments provide methods, systems, components, non-transitory computer readable media, devices, and/or networks, which are configured to randomly select member nodes of a next committee for consensus using commitments by member nodes of a current committee. Firstborn blocks of nodes in the current committee can be used to commit to randomly selecting the next committee and also store random values (e.g., random coefficients) that are sampled from a polynomial and stored in the firstborn blocks. Remaining non-committee nodes can pull the firstborn blocks during a blockchain protocol and use a deterministic algorithm to verify the randomness (i.e., that randomness was used and not faked) and also identify the member nodes of the next committee based on the stored random values.”)) (Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”))
Manevich does not explicitly teach; AI algorithm that is configured to enable……to select one or more of the plurality of devices.
However, Mardikar teaches: AI algorithm that is configured to enable……to select one or more of the plurality of devices (Mardikar Par.(0099) “the AI engine 1005 may be used to output new node types, establish new nodes, generate cyber threat content, output responses and threat evaluations, evaluate consensus mechanisms, allocate voting power”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004]. This motivation applies for the remainder of the claim.
Manevich further discloses: Wherein receipt of one of the one or more copies of the quantum key by a respective one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices enables the respective quantum IoT device to participate in determining security rules for managing interactions or transactions between the plurality of quantum IoT devices and a third-party computer application or system, the security rules mitigating cyberattacks on the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Manevich Par. (0098) “FIG. 3C illustrates a process 350 of a transaction being processed by a permissionless blockchain 352 including a plurality of nodes 354. A sender 356 desires to send payment or some other form of value (e.g., a deed, medical records, a contract, a good, a service, or any other asset that can be encapsulated in a digital record) to a recipient 358 via the permissionless blockchain 352. In one embodiment, each of the sender device 356 and the recipient device 358 may have digital wallets (associated with the blockchain 352) that provide user interface controls and a display of transaction parameters. In response, the transaction is broadcast throughout the blockchain 352 to the nodes 354. Depending on the blockchain's 352 network parameters the nodes verify 360 the transaction based on rules (which may be pre-defined or dynamically allocated) established by the permissionless blockchain 352 creators. For example, this may include verifying identities of the parties involved, etc. The transaction may be verified immediately or it may be placed in a queue with other transactions and the nodes 354 determine if the transactions are valid based on a set of network rules.))
Manevich does not explicitly teach; mitigating cyberattacks on the plurality of
quantum IoT devices.
However, Mardikar teaches: mitigating cyberattacks on the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Mardikar Par.(0102)” the AI engine 1005 of the present disclosure may aggregate dispersed incident response plans/playbooks into a unified best practice, industry-wide response plan/playbook(s) that all participants may use. Of course, this content aggregation and generation is not confined to incident response plans/playbooks. Simply put, the AI engine 1005 may aggregate, pre-analyze, regression test, and auto disseminate curated cyber threat intelligence/content for all participants))
Claim 3. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the [AI algorithm is further configured to] generate a consensus among the plurality of quantum IoT devices that receive one of the one or more copies of the quantum key as to which of the plurality of quantum IoT devices controls future distribution of the quantum key. (Manevich Par. (0030)” Example embodiments provide methods, systems, components, non-transitory computer readable media, devices, and/or networks, which are configured to randomly select member nodes of a next committee for consensus using commitments by member nodes of a current committee. Firstborn blocks of nodes in the current committee can be used to commit to randomly selecting the next committee and also store random values (e.g., random coefficients) that are sampled from a polynomial and stored in the firstborn blocks. Remaining non-committee nodes can pull the firstborn blocks during a blockchain protocol and use a deterministic algorithm to verify the randomness (i.e., that randomness was used and not faked) and also identify the member nodes of the next committee based on the stored random values.”)) (Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”))
Manevich does not explicitly teach; AI algorithm is further configured to generate a consensus among the plurality of quantum IoT devices
However, Mardikar teaches: AI algorithm is further configured to generate a consensus among the plurality of quantum IoT devices (Mardikar Par.(0099) “the AI engine 1005 may be used to output new node types, establish new nodes, generate cyber threat content, output responses and threat evaluations, evaluate consensus mechanisms, allocate voting power”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 5. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the AI algorithm is trained based on previous decisions made by the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Mardikar Par.(0017)” by the one or more processors executing the trained AI model, the second input received from the second node to determine a set of inputs previously stored on the distributed ledger that satisfy a relevance threshold relative to the new cyber threat intelligence content object; generating, by the one or more processors executing the trained AI model, “)) (Par.(0099) “the AI engine 1005 may be used to output new node types, establish new nodes, generate cyber threat content, output responses and threat evaluations, evaluate consensus mechanisms, allocate voting power”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 7. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the AI algorithm requires a predetermined quorum of the plurality of quantum IoT devices to agree to the security rules. (Manevich Par.(0037)” Consensus protocols are used by the blockchain network to ensure that the state of the blockchain ledger is consistent across all of the blockchain peers. One algorithm that is commonly used for consensus is practical byzantine fault tolerance (pBFT). In a pBFT consensus, one or more primary peers act as a lead peer for the remaining peers (referred to herein as following peers or consensus peer). Each lead peer maintains an internal state of the blockchain ledger as do the following peers”))
Claim 8. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the AI algorithm is configured to optimize resource distribution for the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Mardikar Par.(0099) “the AI engine 1005 may be used to output new node types, establish new nodes, generate cyber threat content, output responses and threat evaluations, evaluate consensus mechanisms, allocate voting power”))(Par.(0087)” the smart contracts engine 1004 may actively determine a storage location for inputs based on characteristics of the input.))(Par.(0087) “Responsive to determining that the file size of the input fails to satisfy a file size threshold or that the update frequency of the input fails to satisfy an update frequency threshold, the smart contracts engine 1004 may determine the storage location for at least a portion of the input to be a first storage location that is separate from the distributed ledger 1003.”))
Claim 9. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the quantum key distribution application is configured to require completion of a form by each quantum IoT device to participate in a determination of the security rules. (Manevich Par. (0094)” the peer node 314 retrieves the user's enrollment and transaction certificates from a certificate authority 316, which manages user roles and permissions.”))
Claim 10. Manevich in view of Mardikar The system of claim 9 wherein, upon detection by the AI algorithm of attempted fraud by one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices, the AI algorithm is configured to provide to the respective quantum IoT device at which the attempted fraud is detected a decoy form that, despite execution, does not allow access to [the quantum key by the respective quantum IoT] device at which the attempted fraud is detected.(Mardikar Par.(0093) “Any node that has identified another node as acting suspiciously or lists the suspicious node in a compromise report may cast a vote to isolate”)) (Par.(0093)” the compromise assessment smart contract may adjust the clearance attribute for the suspicious node and thereby prevent its access to the larger distributed ledger 1003.”))
Mardikar does not explicitly teach; access to the quantum key by the respective quantum IoT device.
However, Manevich teaches: access to the quantum key by the respective quantum IoT device (Manevich, Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 12. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the network comprises a fraud alert system that is configured to propagate a fraud alert message from one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices that has detected fraud to others of the plurality of quantum IoT devices in the network. (Mardikar Par.(0102) “AI engine 1005 of the present disclosure may aggregate dispersed incident response plans/playbooks into a unified best practice, industry-wide response plan/playbook(s) that all participants may use. Of course, this content aggregation and generation is not confined to incident response plans/playbooks. Simply put, the AI engine 1005 may aggregate, pre-analyze, regression test, and auto disseminate curated cyber threat intelligence/content for all participants”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 13. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the network comprises an aggregator for aggregating data collected from the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Mardikar Par.(0102)” the AI engine 1005 of the present disclosure may aggregate dispersed incident response plans/playbooks into a unified best practice, industry-wide response plan/playbook(s) that all participants may use. Of course, this content aggregation and generation is not confined to incident response plans/playbooks. Simply put, the AI engine 1005 may aggregate, pre-analyze, regression test, and auto disseminate curated cyber threat intelligence/content for all participants
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 14. Manevich discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the third-party computer application or system comprises a banking network accessed by one or more of the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Manevich Par. (0098) “FIG. 3C illustrates a process 350 of a transaction being processed by a permissionless blockchain 352 including a plurality of nodes 354. A sender 356 desires to send payment or some other form of value (e.g., a deed, medical records, a contract, a good, a service, or any other asset that can be encapsulated in a digital record) to a recipient 358 via the permissionless blockchain 352. In one embodiment, each of the sender device 356 and the recipient device 358 may have digital wallets (associated with the blockchain 352) that provide user interface controls and a display of transaction parameters. In response, the transaction is broadcast throughout the blockchain 352 to the nodes 354. Depending on the blockchain's 352 network parameters the nodes verify 360 the transaction based on rules (which may be pre-defined or dynamically allocated) established by the permissionless blockchain 352 creators. For example, this may include verifying identities of the parties involved, etc. The transaction may be verified immediately or it may be placed in a queue with other transactions and the nodes 354 determine if the transactions are valid based on a set of network rules.))
Claim 15. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising a classical IoT device comprising a classical processor. (Mardikar Par.(0126) “The computing system 100 may include at least one processor 104 coupled to a central hub”)(Par.(0127) “the computing system may include an Internet of Things (IoT)/device layer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manevich in view of Mardikar and in further view of Chainani (US Pat No.12360818)
Claim 16. Manevich discloses a system comprising: a network comprising a plurality of quantum Internet of Things (IoT) devices; wherein: each of two or more of the plurality of quantum IoT devices comprises: a quantum processor; (Manevich Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”)) (Par, (0165) “Adding IoT devices which write directly to the blockchain can, in certain cases (i.e. supply chain, healthcare, logistics, etc.), increase both the frequency and accuracy of the data being recorded.”))
(Examiner's Note: user devices that can create a QKD are interpreted as quantum devices)
an application that is operable, using the quantum processor, to provide electronic access from a respective one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices to one or more third-party computer applications or systems operated by a third party; (Manevich Par.(0115) “an application programming interface (API) gateway 662 provides a common interface for accessing blockchain logic”))
Manevich does not explicitly teach; (AI) algorithm that is trained, using the quantum processor, based on data derived from user interactions between the respective quantum IoT device and the one or more third-party computer applications or systems
However, Mardikar teaches; (AI) algorithm that is trained, …… based on data derived from user interactions between the respective quantum IoT device and the one or more third-party computer applications or systems (Mardikar Par.(0008)“ trained using a plurality of training node inputs and a plurality of training distributed ledger inputs”))(Par.(0144)” The AI/ML models may be trained using a training dataset that includes a plurality of training node inputs and a plurality of training distributed ledger inputs, data retrieved from one or more external sources”)),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004]. This motivation applies for the remainder of the claim.
Manevich, as above, teaches using quantum processor.
Manevich does not explicitly teach; an aggregator, comprising a processor, that is operable to aggregate data derived from the user interactions with the one or more third-party computer applications or systems and the plurality of quantum IoT devices, to provide the aggregated data to a second AI algorithm at the one or more computer applications or systems in the network to be used to train the second AI algorithm to prevent or mitigate cyberattacks on the plurality of quantum IoT devices, and to apply one or more strategic models for optimal resource distribution at the network.
However, Manevich in view of Mardikar teaches; an aggregator, comprising a processor, that is operable to aggregate data derived from the user interactions with the one or more third-party computer applications or systems and the plurality of quantum IoT devices and to provide the aggregated data to a second AI algorithm at the one or more computer applications or systems in the network to be used to train the second AI algorithm to prevent or mitigate cyberattacks on the plurality of quantum IoT devices (Mardikar Par.(0100)” the AI engine 1005 (via a trained AI/ML model) may automatically anonymize the incident response plan and feed this data into an LLM to train the LLM to generate a “best” incident response plan.”))(Par.(0017)” generating, by the one or more processors executing the trained AI model, a composite cyber threat content object by combining portions of the second input and the set of inputs previously stored on the distributed ledger;”)) (Par.(0102)” the AI engine 1005 of the present disclosure may aggregate dispersed incident response plans/playbooks into a unified best practice, industry-wide response plan/playbook(s) that all participants may use. Of course, this content aggregation and generation is not confined to incident response plans/playbooks. Simply put, the AI engine 1005 may aggregate, pre-analyze, regression test, and auto disseminate curated cyber threat intelligence/content for all participants)) Manevich, as above, teaches quantum IoT devices.
Manevich does not teach and to apply one or more strategic models for optimal resource distribution at the network.
However, Chainani teaches; and to apply one or more strategic models for optimal resource distribution at the network. (Chainani Par. (8) “The deep learning model's predictive capabilities allow for proactive infrastructure planning, reducing resource wastage and improving overall system performance. The automatic allocation of processing unit resources based on optimized recommendations streamlines operations”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar in further view of Chainani because it provides an improved system and method for AI workload placement that ensures optimal resource utilization, enhanced visibility, and seamless automation across multi-vendor environments. [Chainani, para.6]
Claim 17. Manevich in view of Mardikar and Chainani discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the third party is a financial institution. (Mardikar Par.(0072)” the AI engine 1005 may identify and offer assistance with onboarding participant nodes to appropriate information sharing authorities (e.g., Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 18. Manevich in view of Mardikar and Chainani discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the aggregator is configured to anonymize the aggregated data so that the aggregated data does not identify a user of a respective one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices from which the aggregated data has been obtained. (Mardikar Par.(0101) “may automatically anonymize the incident response plan and feed this data into an LLM” (Par.(0170) “ disseminating the composite cyber threat content is performed anonymously, such that no participating node has an indication of any other participating node that contributed”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 19. Manevich in view of Mardikar and Chainani discloses The system of claim 16, wherein the aggregator is further configured to train one or more ML models of the second AI algorithm. (Mardikar Par.(0100)” the AI engine 1005 (via a trained AI/ML model) may automatically anonymize the incident response plan and feed this data into an LLM to train the LLM to generate a “best” incident response plan.”))(Par.(0144)” The AI/ML models of the AI engine 1005 may use the training dataset to output training responses, node types, threat evaluations”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004].
Claim 20. Manevich in view of Mardikar and Chainani discloses the system of claim 16, further comprising: a quantum key distribution application that is configured to operate across the plurality of quantum IoT devices; (Manevich Par.(0170) ” FIG. 8B illustrates an example 850 of a quantum-secure blockchain 852 which implements quantum key distribution (QKD) to protect against a quantum computing attack. In this example, blockchain users can verify each other's identities using QKD. This sends information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a sender and a receiver through the blockchain can be sure of each other's identity.”)) (Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”))
Wherein the quantum key distribution application comprises a third [AI algorithm that is configured to] select one or more of the plurality of quantum IoT devices to which to distribute a copy of a quantum key across the plurality of quantum IoT devices; ) (Manevich Par.(0030)”Example embodiments provide methods, systems, components, non-transitory computer readable media, devices, and/or networks, which are configured to randomly select member nodes of a next committee for consensus using commitments by member nodes of a current committee. Firstborn blocks of nodes in the current committee can be used to commit to randomly selecting the next committee and also store random values (e.g., random coefficients) that are sampled from a polynomial and stored in the firstborn blocks. Remaining non-committee nodes can pull the firstborn blocks during a blockchain protocol and use a deterministic algorithm to verify the randomness (i.e., that randomness was used and not faked) and also identify the member nodes of the next committee based on the stored random values.”)) (Par. (0171) “In the example of FIG. 8B, four users are present 854, 856, 858, and 860. Each of pair of users may share a secret key 862 (i.e., a QKD) between themselves. Since there are four nodes in this example, six pairs of nodes exists, and therefore six different secret keys 862 are used including QKD.sub.AB, QKD.sub.AC, QKD.sub.AD, QKD.sub.BC, QKD.sub.BD, and QKD.sub.CD. Each pair can create a QKD by sending information using quantum particles such as photons, which cannot be copied by an eavesdropper without destroying them. In this way, a pair of users can be sure of each other's identity.”))(Par.(0030)” use a deterministic algorithm to verify the randomness (i.e., that randomness was used and not faked) and also identify the member nodes of the next committee based on the stored random values.”))
Manevich does not explicitly teach; AI algorithm that is configured to enable……to select one or more of the plurality of devices.
However, Mardikar teaches: AI algorithm that is configured to enable……to select one or more of the plurality of devices (Mardikar Par. (0099) “the AI engine 1005 may be used to output new node types, establish new nodes, generate cyber threat content, output responses and threat evaluations, evaluate consensus mechanisms, allocate voting power”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich with Mardikar because a need exists for a distributed cyber threat intelligence platform, and a proof-of-contribution mechanism, that enables industry entities to share carefully curated, trustworthy, and timely cyber threat intelligence within peer networks, especially when the industries are under active threat of attack [Mardikar, para.0004]. This motivation applies for the remainder of the claim.
Manevich further teaches:
and wherein possession of the quantum key by a respective one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices enables the respective ones of the plurality of quantum IoT devices to which the copies of the quantum key are distributed to determine security rules for managing interactions between the plurality of quantum IoT devices and a respective third-party computer application or system or a third-party network to prevent or mitigate the cyberattacks on the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Par. (Manevich 0098)
“FIG. 3C illustrates a process 350 of a transaction being processed by a permissionless blockchain 352 including a plurality of nodes 354. A sender 356 desires to send payment or some other form of value (e.g., a deed, medical records, a contract, a good, a service, or any other asset that can be encapsulated in a digital record) to a recipient 358 via the permissionless blockchain 352. In one embodiment, each of the sender device 356 and the recipient device 358 may have digital wallets (associated with the blockchain 352) that provide user interface controls and a display of transaction parameters. In response, the transaction is broadcast throughout the blockchain 352 to the nodes 354. Depending on the blockchain's 352 network parameters the nodes verify 360 the transaction based on rules (which may be pre-defined or dynamically allocated) established by the permissionless blockchain 352 creators. For example, this may include verifying identities of the parties involved, etc. The transaction may be verified immediately or it may be placed in a queue with other transactions and the nodes 354 determine if the transactions are valid based on a set of network rules.))(Par.(0067)” every node that collects the last committee block 134, and its corresponding 2f+1 signatures, can determine the next committee.”))
Manevich does not explicitly teach; mitigating cyberattacks on the plurality of
quantum IoT devices.
However, Mardikar teaches: mitigating cyberattacks on the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Mardikar Par.(0102)” the AI engine 1005 of the present disclosure may aggregate dispersed incident response plans/playbooks into a unified best practice, industry-wide response plan/playbook(s) that all participants may use. Of course, this content aggregation and generation is not confined to incident response plans/playbooks. Simply put, the AI engine 1005 may aggregate, pre-analyze, regression test, and auto disseminate curated cyber threat intelligence/content for all participants))
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected over Manevich in view of Mardikar and further in view of Simons et al (US Pub.No.2019/0379642).
Claim 2. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the features of claim 1, Manevich in view of Mardikar does not teach wherein the plurality of quantum IoT devices comprises heterogeneous quantum IoT devices that use different operating systems or protocols.
However, Simons teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of quantum IoT devices comprises heterogeneous quantum IoT devices that use different operating systems or protocols. (Simons Par. (0027)” anonymous networks 120 and/or blockchain networks 130 may be comprised of multiple networks, even multiple heterogeneous networks.”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich in view Mardikar with Simons because it provides secure communications, ensures privacy, and actively monitors transactions to identify various security threats. (Simons Par. (0005).
Claim 4. Manevich in view of Mardikar and further discloses the system of claim 3, Manevich in view of Mardikar does not teach wherein the AI algorithm is configured to generate the consensus using a game-based algorithm.
However Simons teaches wherein the AI algorithm is configured to generate the consensus using a game-based algorithm (Simons Par. (0023)” non-human game theory and capability that creates an autonomous consensus model inside the machine learning agents and system itself;”))
The same motivation to modify with Simons, as in claim 2, applies.
Claims 6 is rejected over Manevich in view of Mardikar and further in view of Hoffberg (US Pub.No.2006/0167784)
Claim 6. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the feature of claim 1. Manevich in view of Mardikar does not teach, wherein the security rules are configured to be dependent on a monetary size of a transaction to be conducted by one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices.
However, Hoffberg teaches: the system of claim 1, wherein the security rules are configured to be dependent on a monetary size of a transaction to be conducted by one of the plurality of quantum IoT devices. (Hoffberg Par. (0067)” The frequency of polling messages is related to the monetary value of transactions))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich in view Mardikar with Hoffberg because it is desirable to employ standard Internet technologies while achieving sufficient quality communications to effect an efficient transaction. (Hoffberg Par. (0007).
Claims 11 is rejected over Manevich in view of Mardikar and further in view of McGrew et al (US Pub.No.2024/0333765)
Claim 11. Manevich in view of Mardikar discloses the feature of claim 10. Manevich in view of Mardikar does not teach wherein the AI algorithm comprises a generative AI algorithm that is configured to generate the decoy form in real time.
However, McGrew teaches: the system of claim 10, wherein the AI algorithm comprises a generative AI algorithm that is configured to generate the decoy form in real time. (McGrew Par. (0041) “Through the utilization of LLMs, organizations can gain the capability to generate honeypots boasting a diverse array of potential attack vectors and anticipated observables.)) (Par. (0108) “while in the reactive approach, deceptive information is created in real-time to lure attackers.”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Manevich in view Mardikar with McGrew because it uses LLM to draw in potential attackers with false documents and accounts using honeypot schemes that generate lifelike deceptions. (McGrew Par. (0002).
Pertinent prior art
Pertinent prior art made of record, however not relied upon, includes:
Guerin (US Pub No. 10250387)
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 ABDULLAHI MOHAMED ABDULLAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9615. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
