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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Final action is in response to communications filed on 07/23/2026 claim(s) 1, 9 and 19 are amended per Applicant's request. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application and have been considered as follows.
In light of the previous applicant amendment the examiner hereby withdraws the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejection, however, maintains the double patenting rejection as a terminal disclaimer has not been filed at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “determining that each PDU associated with each of the PDU headers originated from the quantum computer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites “federal” which appears to be a misspelling of “federated”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12206702 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while broader, the instant application is fully anticipated by the U.S Patent as indicated in the table below:
Instant Application 18/975,897
US Patent No. 12206702 B2
1. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
detecting a presence of attack vectors in a quantum payload responsive to protocol data unit (PDU) headers of inbound Internet and non-Internet traffic identifying the presence of the quantum payload, wherein the attack vectors originate from a quantum computer, and wherein the attack vectors are cryptanalytically relevant;
generating an alert responsive to the detecting the presence of the attack vectors; wherein the detecting of the presence of attack vectors comprises inspecting each of the PDU headers and determining that each PDU associated with each of the PDU headers originated from the quantum computer, wherein each of the PDU headers comprises a classical, non-quantum PDU header, wherein the inspecting of each of the PDU headers comprises determining that each PDU references carrying the quantum payload; and
isolating and routing traffic around compromised network elements, sets of elements, other network components, network subsystems, or a combination thereof.
1. A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
performing a packet analysis of protocol data unit (PDU) headers of inbound Internet and non-Internet traffic;
determining whether the PDU headers identify a presence of a quantum payload;
detecting a presence of attack vectors in the quantum payload responsive to a determination that the PDU headers identify the presence of the quantum payload and/or via deep packet inspection, wherein the attack vectors originate from a quantum computer, and wherein the attack vectors are cryptanalytically relevant;
generating an alert responsive to detecting the presence of the attack vectors; and
isolating compromised network elements, sets of elements, and/or other network components and/or subsystems, and route traffic around the compromised network elements, sets of elements, and/or other network components and/or subsystems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 19 recites “determining that each PDU associated with each of the PDU headers originated from the quantum computer.” The applicant has identified paragraph 0070 of the originally filed specification as support which has been acknowledged. This paragraph discloses detecting CRQC-originated attack vectors based on packet analysis of PDU headers and determining whether the PDUs identify reference to a quantum payload. It further discloses that the PDU headers and trailers may be classical, non-quantum headers identifying quantum based PDU payloads. Therefore, the original disclosure reasonably covers that CRQC or quantum computer origin of the attack vectors, classical non-quantum PDU headers, PDU headers identifying or referencing a quantum payload and detection of quantum computer originated attack vectors in connection with those payloads. The disclosure also separately describes a data analytic engine identifying quantum information payloads originating from general purpose quantum classical computational sources and CRQC sources.
However, the disclosure does not reasonably convey that inspection of each classical PDU header determines that each associated PDU itself originated from the quantum computer. Paragraph 0070 discloses CRQC origin to the attack vectors, not to each PDU. The separate disclosure concerning quantum information payloads originating from CRQC sources likewise does not disclose determining the origin of each PDU from its PDU header. Thus the written description fails to describe the claimed relationship between header inspection and determining quantum computer origin of the associated PDU.
Dependent claims are rejected for failing to overcome the rejection from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 19 recites “determining that each PDU references carrying the quantum payload.” This limitation renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. In particular, it is not reasonably clear whether this limitation requires each PDU to carry the quantum payload, each PDU to contain a reference to the quantum payload or each PDU to contain information that indicates that another element or field carries the quantum payload. Thus, due to the ambiguity and uncertainty of the meaning of “references carrying the quantum payload” the claims are rejected for the reasons listed.
Dependent claims are rejected for failing to overcome the rejection from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed and approved to overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM CST.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
