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 7/20/2026 for application 18/992,214.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending; claims 2-8 have been amended; Claims 9-18 have been added; Claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent claims; claims 1-18 have been examined. This Action is made Non-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2026 and 8/4/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 2-7 is removed in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicants’ arguments in the instant Amendment, filed on 7/20/2026, with respect to limitations listed below, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts as follows: II. Claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. #103: [A]. Claims 1 and 3-8 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. @ 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Tanaka (U.S. '831) in view of Kwok (U.S. '912). Applicant traverses this rejection. The combination of Tanaka in view of Kwok fails to teach or suggest "wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re- connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components" as recited by independent claim 1 and its Dependents. The Office Action (pg. 6) admits that "Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re- connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components. “The Office Action (pgs. 6-7) alleges that this admitted deficiency of Tanaka is resolved by Kwok. However, Kwok does not disclose a QKD apparatus having functionally disconnectable and reconnectable functional components. Rather, paragraph [0033] (reproduced above) of Kwok merely explains that the disclosed BER calculation technique is useful when adjustments are made to a QKD system, including where a system component has been changed. Paragraph [0033] of Kwok relates to the circumstances in which the BER calculation technique may be employed and is about when a BER-recalibration technique is useful (i.e., after a component "is changed"), not about how a component is disconnected/reconnected. Paragraph [0033] and all other portions of Kwok do not disclose or suggest that the QKD apparatus itself comprises modular functional components that are disconnectable from, and reconnectable to, the remainder of the apparatus. Accordingly, even if the teachings of Tanaka and Kwok were combined, the combination fails to teach or suggest "wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components" as recited by independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully submits, regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses, paragraph 0054, an apparatus for performing quantum key distribution, the apparatus comprising: by disclosing an arrangement of a general quantum key distribution system; paragraph 0066, a plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution by disclosing quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113; paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137. Kwok discloses, paragraph 0033, wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components by disclosing when a QKD system component is changed.
Applicant asserts as follows: Similar comments apply to independent claims 8 and 12 and their respective dependents.
Examiner respectfully submits, regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses, paragraph 0054, a system for performing quantum key distribution, the system comprising: by disclosing an arrangement of a general quantum key distribution system; paragraph 0066, a quantum transmitter having a first plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum receiver by disclosing quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113; paragraph 0074, a quantum receiver having a second plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum transmitter by disclosing quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137. First page, introduction, lines 17-20, wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of that plurality of functional components by disclosing quantum source and transmitter are placed on the airborne platform; quantum receiver on airborne platform while keeping quantum source on ground; 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.
Applicant asserts as follows: [B]. Claim 2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Kwok, and further in view of Ukita (U.S. '628). Applicant traverses this rejection. Claim 2 depends from base independent claim 1. The above-described deficiencies of Tanaka in view of Kwok with respect to base independent claim 1 therefore apply to dependent claim 2. Ukita fails to resolve these deficiencies. Claim 2 requires that the "one or more of the plurality of functional components" recited in claim 1 (i.e., the very component that is functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components) itself "comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire." In Ukita, however, the cited "optical connector socket" 6 (see Ukita at paras [0132] and Figs. 9-10) connects the assembled light source unit 1,-8-lens 2, light modulator 3, filter 4, and photo receiver 5 (which are already integrated together as a notebook computer accessory) to an external optical cable extending outside the notebook computer for communication with an external network (see Ukita at paras. [0132]-[0134]). Ukita's socket 6 thus connects the assembled device to something external to it. It does not connect one internal functional component of a QKD apparatus (e.g., a photon source, modulator, control electronics, or random number generator) to another internal functional component of that same apparatus so that the internal component can be functionally disconnected and reconnected, as required by claims 1 and 2.Accordingly, even considering Ukita, the combination of Tanaka, Kwok, and Ukita fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 2 ,which depends from independent claim 1.Similar comments apply to new dependent claims 9 and 13.Applicant therefore requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully submits, regarding claim 2, Tanaka and Kwok disclose an apparatus according to claim 1. Ukita discloses, paragraph 0130, 0132, and 0126, in which the one or more of the plurality of functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire by disclosing optical fiber; optical connector socket 6; quantum encryption communication.
Applicant asserts as follows: III. Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is not invoked: Claims 1, 3 and 8 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to allegedly cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant submits that this alleged interpretation does not apply to claim 8, which requires a receiver and a transmitter, each of which connotes sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Applicant further submits that this alleged interpretation does not apply to claims 1 and 3 either. The claim language ("functional components [that] co-operate to perform" and "[replacement] functional component[s] adapted to connect") identified by the Office Action does not use the term "means" or "step." The "functional component" is used throughout the claims, and throughout the specification, to denote physical, connectable hardware elements such as, for example, a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, a random number generator, a demodulator, or a photodetector, as recited in dependent claims 5 and 7 and in the specification (see e.g., pg. 2, 11. 25-31 and pg. 3, 11. 13-27). As is apparently acknowledged in the Office Action, this alleged claim interpretation does not apply to claims 2 and 4-7, each of which requires structural features such as a socket (claim 2), a transmitter (claims 4-5), and a receiver (claims 6-7). Finally, Applicant submits that a claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) does not apply to the steps of new method claims 12-15 and 18, or to new system claims 8-11 and 17, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 3. Applicant therefore requests that the alleged interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully submits the claim interpretation is maintained. 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, 3, 8, 9, and 10.
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 Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: each preamble of claims 2-7 starts with “An apparatus”; however, apparatus is introduced in base claim 1. As apparatus has an antecedent basis in claim 2-7, the preambles of each of claims 2-7 should be amended to begin with “The apparatus”... Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 8, 9, and 10.
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 and 3-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20100195831), PCT filed July 9, 2008, in view of Kwok (US20100241912), filed April 4, 2006.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an apparatus for performing quantum key distribution, the apparatus comprising: (Tanaka, paragraph 0054, arrangement of a general quantum key distribution system);
a plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution (Tanaka, paragraph 0066, quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113; paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components.
However, in an analogous art, Kwok discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components (Kwok, paragraph 0033, when a QKD system component is changed).
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 Kwok with the apparatus/ system of Tanaka to include wherein one or more of the plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of the plurality of functional components to provide users with the benefits of quickly setting up and / or calibrating a QKD system (Kwok: abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, in which the apparatus further comprises one or more replacement functional components adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the plurality of functional components if the one or more of the plurality of functional components are disconnected from the remainder of the plurality of functional components (Kwok, paragraph 0033, when a QKD system component is changed).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, in which the apparatus is a quantum transmitter (Tanaka, paragraph 0066, quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the apparatus according to claim 4, in which the plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of the following: a source of photons; a modulator; control electronics; a random number generator (Tanaka, paragraph 0066, quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113; paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the apparatus according to claim 1,in which the apparatus is a quantum receiver (Tanaka, paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the apparatus according to claim 6 wherein the plurality of functional components comprises one or more of the following: a demodulator; control electronics; a first photodetector; or a second photodetector (Tanaka, paragraph 0066, quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113; paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20100195831), PCT filed July 9, 2008, in view of Kwok (US20100241912), filed April 4, 2006, and further in view of Ukita (US20120294628), PCT filed December 24, 2010.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka and Kwok disclose an apparatus according to claim 1.
Tanaka and Kwok do not explicitly disclose in which the one or more of the plurality of functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire.
However, in an analogous art, Ukita discloses in which the one or more of the plurality of functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire (Ukita, paragraph 0130, optical fiber; paragraph 0132, optical connector socket 6; paragraph 0126, quantum encryption communication).
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 Ukita with the apparatus/ system of Tanaka and Kwok to include in which the one or more of the plurality of functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire to provide users with the benefits of a light source unit capable of generating a feeble optical pulse in which noise is low and intensity is sufficiently controlled (Ukita: paragraph 0006).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20100195831), PCT filed July 9, 2008, in view of Kwok (US20100241912), filed April 4, 2006, and further in view of Tomaru (WO211099325), published August 18, 2011.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the apparatus according to claim 1.
Tanaka and Kwok do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more of the plurality of functional components is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of the plurality of functional components, and connected to the remainder of the plurality of functional components by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the one or more of the plurality of functional components is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of the plurality of functional components, and connected to the remainder of the plurality of functional components by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring (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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver; ).
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/ method of Tanaka and Kwok to include wherein the one or more of the plurality of functional components is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of the plurality of functional components, and connected to the remainder of the plurality of functional components by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring 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).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20100195831), PCT filed July 9, 2008, 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 8, Tanaka discloses system for performing quantum key distribution, the system comprising: (Tanaka, paragraph 0054, arrangement of a general quantum key distribution system);
a quantum transmitter having a first plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum receiver (Tanaka, paragraph 0066, quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113);
a quantum receiver having a second plurality of connected functional components which, in use, co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum transmitter (Tanaka, paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of that plurality of functional components.
However, in an analogous art, Pugh discloses wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable 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 ground; first page, line 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/ method of Tanaka to include wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable 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 12, Tanaka discloses a method of performing quantum key distribution, the method comprising:
using a quantum transmitter having a first plurality of connected component elements to co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum receiver (Tanaka, paragraph 0066, quantum cryptographic transmitter 11 includes functional units such as photon source 1101, interferometer 1112, key distillation circuit 1113);
using a quantum receiver having a second plurality of connected component elements to co-operate to perform quantum key distribution with the quantum transmitter (Tanaka, paragraph 0074, quantum cryptographic receiver incudes functional units phase modulator 131, interferometer 132, photo detector 133, modulation driver 134, random number source 136, key distillation circuit 137).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of that plurality of component elements.
However, in an analogous art, Pugh discloses wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable to, the remainder of that plurality of component elements (Pugh: first page, introduction, quantum source and transmitter are placed on the airborne platform; quantum receiver on airborne platform while keeping quantum source on ground; first page, line 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/ method of Tanaka to include wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality of functional components are functionally disconnectable from, and re-connectable 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 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20100195831), PCT filed July 9, 2008, in view of Pugh 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 Ukita (US20120294628), PCT filed December 24, 2010.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka and Kwok disclose the system according to claim 8.
Tanaka and Kwok do not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality connected functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire.
However, in an analogous art, Ukita discloses wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality connected functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire (Ukita, paragraph 0130, optical fiber; paragraph 0132, optical connector socket 6; paragraph 0126, quantum encryption communication).
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 Ukita with the apparatus/ system of Tanaka and Pugh to include wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality connected functional components comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire to provide users with the benefits of a light source unit capable of generating a feeble optical pulse in which noise is low and intensity is sufficiently controlled (Ukita: paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 12.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality connected component elements comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire.
However, in an analogous art, Ukita discloses wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality connected component elements comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire (Ukita, paragraph 0130, optical fiber; paragraph 0132, optical connector socket 6; paragraph 0126, quantum encryption communication).
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 Ukita with the apparatus/ system of Tanaka and Pugh to include wherein one or more of the first and/or second plurality connected component elements comprises a socket adapted to connect to an optical fibre or a metallic wire to provide users with the benefits of a light source unit capable of generating a feeble optical pulse in which noise is low and intensity is sufficiently controlled (Ukita: paragraph 0006).
Claim 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20100195831), PCT filed July 9, 2008, in view of Pugh 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 10, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the system according to claim 8.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more replacement functional components adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of functional components if the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components are disconnected from the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses further comprising one or more replacement functional components adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of functional components if the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components are disconnected from the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components (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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver ).
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/ method of Tanaka and Pugh to include further comprising one or more replacement functional components adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of functional components if the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components are disconnected from the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components 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 11, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the system according to claim 8.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, or a random number generator, and/or the second plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, or a second photodetector.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, or a random number generator, and/or the second plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, or 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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver; ).
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/ method of Tanaka and Pugh to include wherein the first plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, or a random number generator, and/or the second plurality of connected functional components comprises one or more of a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, or 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 14, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 12.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more replacement component elements adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of component elements if the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements are disconnected from the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses further comprising one or more replacement component elements adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of component elements if the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements are disconnected from the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements (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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver; ).
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/ method of Tanaka and Pugh to include further comprising one or more replacement component elements adapted to connect functionally to the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of component elements if the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements are disconnected from the remainder of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements 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, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 12.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the first plurality of connected component elements comprises one or more of a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, or a random number generator, and/or the second plurality of connected component elements comprises one or more of a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, or a second photodetector.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the first plurality of connected component elements comprises one or more of a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, or a random number generator, and/or the second plurality of connected component elements comprises one or more of a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, or 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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver).
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/ method of Tanaka and Pugh to include wherein the first plurality of connected component elements comprises one or more of a source of photons, a modulator, control electronics, or a random number generator, and/or the second plurality of connected component elements comprises one or more of a demodulator, control electronics, a first photodetector, or 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, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 12.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of that plurality of functional components, and connected to the remainder of that plurality of functional components by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of that plurality of functional components, and connected to the remainder of that plurality of functional components by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring (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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver).
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/ method of Tanaka and Pugh to include wherein the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected functional components is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of that plurality of functional components, and connected to the remainder of that plurality of functional components by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring 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 18, Tanaka and Pugh disclose the method according to claim 12.
Tanaka and Pugh do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of that plurality of component elements, and connected to the remainder of that plurality of component elements by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring.
However, in an analogous art, Tomaru discloses wherein the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of that plurality of component elements, and connected to the remainder of that plurality of component elements by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring (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, 4th page, line 42, through 5th page, line 4, transmitters and receivers connected, transmission paths 201 and 202 that connect transmitter and receiver; ).
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/ method of Tanaka and Pugh to include wherein the one or more of the first and/or second plurality of connected component elements is provided in a separate module, located remotely from the remainder of that plurality of component elements, and connected to the remainder of that plurality of component elements by optical fibre and/or metallic wiring 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