DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 9 April 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 9 April 2026:
a. Applicant’s arguments that there is no basis in the prior art to combine Stapleton and Harrison has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
b. Applicant’s arguments that the cited art teaches away from the proposed combination has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. The Applicant states that Harrison affirmatively teaches away from intentionally rendering data unreadable and flags the bits as unreadable as a last resort when all recovery techniques have been exhausted. The Examiner respectfully submits that Harrison was merely introduced to teach the concept of rendering bits unreadable as a result of a measurement with no regard to prioritization, as it is not claimed in Applicant’s claims.
c. Applicant’s arguments that Stapleton-Harrison fails to teach, suggest, or disclose that pre-existing “sensitive data” stored in “a quantum memory” is “encoded” onto “entangled QuBits” such that “upon the encoding, the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits comprises the sensitive data” has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Stapleton, Paragraph [0077], see “…The quantum derived seed may include any type of quantum system that produces entanglement between two entities in the quantum system…”, Paragraph [0078], see “The random number generator may produce the random number based on measurements of the quantum derived seed comprising quantum entangled particles…”, which is analogous to encoding sensitive data (quantum derived seed) onto entangled QuBits, such that upon the encoding, the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits (e.g., quantum entangled particles) comprises the sensitive data and Paragraph [0094], see “The technique 550 includes an operation 555 to store a quantum derived seed in a quantum memory…”.
d. Applicant’s arguments that Stapleton-Harrison fails to teach, suggest, or disclose “in response to identifying the unauthorized measurement of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits, cause the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits to be rendered unreadable” has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Stapleton, Stapleton, Paragraph [0022], see “The result of measurements in the “security check” data set are evaluated against an inequality such as Bell’s inequality or the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Hold (CHSH) inequality…When the measurements in the “security check” data set do not violate the CHSH (or other suitable) inequality, then the quantum communication channel may have been disturbed by an outside observer, and the key generation data set may be insecure and discarded”, where “insecure and discarded” is being read as rendering the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits as unreadable. Applicant’s attention is directed to the fact that the measurements where the analyzers at the measurement station at Node A 120 are set to the same orientation as those at the measurement station at Node B 140 are stored into a “key generation” data set. Therefore, the “key generation” data set comprise the entangled QuBits during measurement. Also, Harrison was introduced to teach rendering a bit unreadable after a measurement, see Harrison, Column 10, Lines 22 – 24, see “…If they cannot be found to be true ‘1’ or ‘0’ bits, they are flagged as unreadable…”, which is analogous to rendering bits unreadable in response to identifying an unauthorized measurement.
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 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2026/0019246), hereinafter Stapleton, in view of Harrison et al. (U.S. Patent 5,298,897), hereinafter Harrison.
Regarding claim 1, Stapleton teaches A system, comprising:
a quantum memory configured to store sensitive data to be transmitted to a quantum computing device over an optical communication channel (Stapleton, FIG. 1, see “LASER”, which is being read as transmitting information over an optical communication channel) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0094], see “The technique 550 includes an operation 555 to store a quantum derived seed in a quantum memory…”, where “quantum derived seed” is being read as sensitive data stored in a quantum memory) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0095], see “…the quantum memory may be linked to or accessible by any suitable nodes within a computing network”) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0097], see “…measurement (or read-out) of quantum information stored in the quantum memory can use substantially the same hardware as was used to initialize the information…such as using a laser pulse to create a fluorescence signal in the physical storage medium where an intensity of the fluorescence signal can allow for determination of the stored quantum information”); and
one or more quantum processors operably coupled to the quantum memory and configured to (Stapleton, FIG. 1, see “125” and “145”, which comprise one or more quantum processors) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0095], see “…the quantum memory may be linked to or accessible by any suitable nodes within a computing network”):
generate one or more pairs of entangled quantum bits (QuBits) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0030], see “…the entangled particles may be…pairs of qubits…that are stationary and may be entangled…”);
encode each pair of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits based at least in part on the sensitive data (Stapleton, FIG. 3D, where each pair of entangled QuBits are encoded based at least in part on the sensitive data (e.g., quantum derived seed)), wherein, upon the encoding, the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits comprises the sensitive data (Stapleton, Paragraph [0017], see “…By including a random number generated from a quantum derived seed, and particularly by distributing the quantum derived seed using quantum entanglement, such modifications can be communicated across two or more nodes of a computing network”, where upon the encoding, the one or more pairs of entangled qubits comprises the sensitive data (e.g., distribution of the quantum derived seed using quantum entanglement));
store the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits to a predetermined quantum storage medium configured to maintain a state of each pair of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits (Stapleton, Paragraph [0094], see “…a quantum memory may store any suitable quantity of individual quantum bits of pairs of bits that are already entangled…Any suitable additional hardware may be included in the quantum memory that can preserve the coherence of the stored quantum information (e.g., qubit) or entangled qubits”, which is being read as storing the pairs of entangled QuBits to a quantum storage medium configured to maintain a state of each pair);
identify, based at least in part on a change in state associated with one Qubit of a pair of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits, an unauthorized measurement of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits (Stapleton, Paragraph [0022], see “The result of measurements in the “security check” data set are evaluated against an inequality such as Bell’s inequality or the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Hold (CHSH) inequality…When the measurements in the “security check” data set do not violate the CHSH (or other suitable) inequality, then the quantum communication channel may have been disturbed by an outside observer, and the key generation data set may be insecure and discarded”, which is being read as identifying, based at least in part on a change in state, an unauthorized measurement of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits); and
in response to identifying the unauthorized measurement of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits, cause the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits to be rendered unreadable (Stapleton, Paragraph [0022], see “The result of measurements in the “security check” data set are evaluated against an inequality such as Bell’s inequality or the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Hold (CHSH) inequality…When the measurements in the “security check” data set do not violate the CHSH (or other suitable) inequality, then the quantum communication channel may have been disturbed by an outside observer, and the key generation data set may be insecure and discarded”, where “insecure and discarded” is being read as rendering the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits as unreadable).
However, assuming arguendo that Stapleton does not adequality teach causing the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits to be rendered unreadable in response to identifying the unauthorized measurement, the Examiner introduces Harrison, which more specifically teaches the above limitation, see Harrison, Column 10, Lines 22 – 24, see “…If they cannot be found to be true ‘1’ or ‘0’ bits, they are flagged as unreadable…”, which is analogous to rendering bits unreadable in response to identifying an unauthorized measurement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Stapleton, by implementing techniques of rendering information unreadable after a measurement, disclosed of Harrison.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for encrypting and securing stored sensitive data based on the quantum echo effect, comprising of rendering information unreadable after a measurement. This allows for better security management by protecting sensitive data from unauthorized access by rendering the information as unreadable. Harrison is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of rendering information unreadable after a measurement (Harrison, Column 10, Lines 22 – 24).
Regarding claim 2, Stapleton as modified by Harrison teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the quantum storage medium comprises one or more of a cryogenic storage medium, a nitrogen-vacancy (N-V) center in diamond storage medium, one or more rare-earth-ion-doped crystals, one or more quantum dots (QDs), a quantum optical memory (QOM), one or more superconducting QuBits, or a controlled reversible inhomogeneous broadening of a single atomic absorption line (CRIB) storage medium (Stapleton, Paragraph [0094], see “…Preserving the coherence of the stored information can be accomplished through isolating the physical storage medium from environmental factors. Examples of such hardware include cryogenic refrigerators…”, which is being read as comprising a cryogenic storage medium).
Regarding claim 4, Stapleton as modified by Harrison teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more quantum processors are further configured to generate the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits by utilizing one or more of a quantum dot (QD), a high-intensity laser, or a quantum particle generator (Stapleton, Paragraph [0026], see “…the laser 112 may be any suitable laser, such as a continuous wave laser or a pulsed laser. The laser 112 may have any suitable wavelength (tunable or fixed), bandwidth, output power…”)
Regarding claim 5, Stapleton as modified by Harrison teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more quantum processors are further configured to encode each pair of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits by utilizing a quantum modulator configured to alter a polarization or a spin of at least one QuBit of each pair of the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits (Stapleton, Paragraph [0027], see “…may be entangled across any suitable physical characteristic, such as phase, polarization, wavelength, arrival time, etc. The output photon pair may be described with any suitable quantum entangled state…or any other suitable described quantum mechanical superposition that may be necessary to carry out a selected quantum cryptography protocol”) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0123], see “…wherein the measurements of the quantum derived seed comprising quantum entangled particles comprise measuring a polarization state for each photon in a stream of entangled photon pairs…”).
Regarding claim 6, Stapleton as modified by Harrison teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more pairs of entangled QuBits comprises one or more pairs of entangled photons, one or more pairs of entangled electronics, one or more pairs of entangled neuronal impulses, or one or more pairs of entangled subatomic particles (Stapleton, Paragraph [0026], see “The entangled particular source 110 may produce entangled photon pairs…”) (Stapleton, Paragraph [0031], see “…the entangled photon source 1114 may instead be…a source of entangled electronics”).
Regarding claim 7, Stapleton as modified by Harrison teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the optical communication channel comprises one or more of an optical fiber link or a free-space optical link (Stapleton, Paragraph [0034], see “…a photon pair including entangled photons 116 and 118 emitted form the entangled photon source 114 is transmitted (e.g., free-space, fiber optic, etc.) to two nodes”).
Regarding claim 8 and 15, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights