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 .
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 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 21 recites the limitation: “wherein three data transfer devices, of the plurality of data transfer devices, are arranged as nodes of an equilateral triangle.” Applicants specification describes “equilateral triangle” as pertaining to “the plurality of aircraft, satellite, and ground-based devices number at least 3, the aircraft, satellite, and ground-based devices are configured to transmit and receive quantum-entangled laser beams in order to exchange information, and the aircraft, satellite, and ground-based devices are arranged in an equilateral or near-equilateral triangle” (Specification, para. 30). The nodes recited in claim 21 are in relation to the data transfer devices, and not the plurality of aircraft, satellite and ground-based devices. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the “data transfer devices” as one of an aircraft, a satellite, and a ground-based device that form the equilateral triangle.
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 21-40 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "near-simultaneous.” The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what “near-simultaneous” is, and the claim limitation has no standard or boundary. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “near-simultaneous” as something that is capable of being transferred as data with different points in time between sending and receiving of the data.
Claim 23 recites “some of the equilateral triangles.” The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what “some of the equilateral triangles” are. The “some” of the equilateral triangles could reference the “plurality of equilateral triangles,” or a portion of one equilateral triangle. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets some of the equilateral triangles” as a portion of one equilateral triangle.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "near Earth.” The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what amount of distance “near Earth” is, and the claim limitation has no standard or boundary. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “near Earth” as something that is any given distance from Earth.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the three nodes of the equilateral triangle.” The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim how the three nodes of the equilateral triangle, relate to the nodes of the equilateral triangle. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “the three nodes of the equilateral triangle” as something nodes of data transfer devices.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "near-instantaneous.” The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what “near-instantaneous” is, and the claim limitation has no standard or boundary. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “near-instantaneous” as something that is capable of being communicated with different points in time between sending and receiving of the communication.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “polarizing in varied sequence” in lines 5. The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what “polarizing in varied sequence” is. According to Applicants own specification, (Para. 202-204), varied sequence includes a numbered order that changes. However, the currently recited claim limitation could also be interpreted as polarizing laser beams in different sequences. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “polarizing in varied sequence” as a sequence of laser beams that can be in any order for polarizing.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “polarizing in the same varied sequence” in line 10. The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what “polarizing in the same varied sequence” is. According to Applicants own specification, (Para. 202-204), varied sequence includes a numbered order that changes. However, the currently recited claim limitation could also be interpreted as polarizing laser beams in different sequences. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “polarizing in the same varied sequence” as a sequence of laser beams that can be in any order for polarizing.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the sequences are set” in line 1. The claim limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim what “the sequences are set” is. The claim fails to particularly point out if “the sequences are set” refers to the “the varied sequence” or the “the same varied sequences,” as noted earlier in the claims. Also, the claim fails to particularly point out how the sequences are set. For purposes of the examination, examiner interprets “the sequences are set” as quantum entangled laser beams that are capable of being delivered.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima US 8995842, in view of Cong CN 108646257, Gat US 7126691, and Bik, in “LISA Satellite Formation Control,” from Advances in Space Research, 2007.
Regarding claim 21, Kojima discloses a system for wireless data transfer (“Free-space optical technologies may be used as a means of ground, airborne and space-based digital communications and surveillance because of the cost-effectiveness, high-bandwidth and/or enhanced security associated with these technologies”), the system comprising:
a plurality of data transfer devices configured as transmitting and receiving power stations (Fig. 1, Transmitter (108) and receiver (109) devices using pairs of entangled photons for data transfer).
Kojima fails to disclose wherein each device is one of an aircraft, a satellite, and a ground-based device. However, Kojima teaches that “free-space optical technologies may be used as a means of ground, airborne and space-based digital communications and surveillance.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with each device being an aircraft, satellite and ground-based device. Doing so creates cost-effectiveness, high-bandwidth, and/or enhanced security associated with the technologies (“Free-space optical technologies may be used as a means of ground, airborne and space-based digital communications and surveillance because of the cost-effectiveness, high-bandwidth and/or enhanced security associated with these technologies”).
Modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein three data transfer devices, of the plurality of data transfer devices, are arranged as nodes. However, Cong discloses three quantum satellites communicating with a ground station, with photon pairs being sent along two beams from each satellite, which creates a multi-node arrangement in an equilateral triangle (“The invention discloses a satellite-based quantum ranging and positioning system based on three quantum satellites and a ground station”; “A satellite-based quantum ranging and positioning system based on three quantum satellites and a ground station, including: three quantum satellites, a ground station, and user-side equipment”; Fig. 1, “Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of the spatial distribution of a satellite-based quantum ranging and positioning system based on three quantum satellites and a ground station provided by an embodiment of the present invention”; Cong, discloses three satellites which function as nodes and form an equilateral triangle, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with Cong. Doing so creates a more resilient communicating system and enhances security of the system.
Modified Kojima fails to disclose an arrangement of nodes as an equilateral triangle. However, Bik discloses three identical spacecraft in equilateral triangular formation, with are connected by laser beams for data transfer (Bik, “LISA consists of three identical spacecraft, located 5 · 106 km apart, in an equilateral triangular formation. LISA monitors the stretching of space-time, caused by gravitational waves, by measuring the change in distance between two arms of the formation with laser interferometry. The three arms of the formation give independent information on the gravitational wave polarization.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with the equilateral triangles of Bik. Doing so creates greater accuracy of data measurement
Modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein data is transferred near-simultaneously between the nodes of the equilateral triangle via pairs of quantum-entangled laser beams. However, Gat discloses a transmitter and receiver assembly (300 & 400) with a laser (100) that emits a two beams of entangled pairs of photons (502 and 503), with the simultaneous transfer of data of pairs (“And somehow, in a way that is not understood, for a pair of entangled particles, when one member of the pair makes such a decision, its counterpart will simultaneously make the same decision at the same time even if the two particles are far apart. (Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance”, and it was his main objection to quantum theory. This “spooky action at a distance” is real, and it has already found application in cryptography, where it is used for the secure distribution of keys”; “A laser 100 emits a laser beam 501 which illuminates a down-converter 200. The down-converter in turn emits two beams of entangled pairs of photons 502 and 503”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with Gat. Doing so improves communication between different devices collecting information and transferring information between each other, and that measurements of certain properties of data transfer will come out with the same result (“it is possible to produce pairs of particles such that measurements of certain of their properties always come out with the same result”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kojima wherein the plurality of data transfer devices includes a plurality of equilateral triangles of data transfer devices which form an array (Bik, Fig. 1, Fig. 1 shows an array of a plurality of satellites orbiting the sun).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kojima discloses wherein the plurality of data transfer devices are located near Earth (Bik, Fig. 1, located near the Earth).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kojima discloses wherein the plurality of data transfer devices are all satellites located in space (Bik, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, modified Kojima discloses wherein the quantum entangled laser beams are polarized (Gat, discloses polarization, Beam-splitter 301, “Also discloses “polarizing beams” throughout).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima US 8995842, in view of Cong CN 108646257, Gat US 7126691, and Bik, in “LISA Satellite Formation Control,” from Advances in Space Research, 2007, as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of Will US 20200169125.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein at least some of the equilateral triangles share at least one node. However, Will discloses that a equilateral platform of different devices (110, 121 and 122) can occur between the node of a blockchain platform (Para. 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with node infrastructure of Will. Doing so allows the conservation of energy as communication occurs between one node, and increases security with having to only secure one node as opposed to multiple nodes.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima US 8995842, in view of Cong CN 108646257, Gat US 7126691, and Bik, in “LISA Satellite Formation Control,” from Advances in Space Research, 2007, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Kato, in “Optimizing Space-Air-Ground Integrated Networks by Artificial Intelligence,” from IEEE Wireless Communications, 2018.
Regarding claim 26, modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein the three nodes of the equilateral triangle are in outer space, in the air, and on the ground. However, Kato discloses three different apparatus for nodes, with one for satellites, one for UAV’s, and one for a ground segment (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with Kato. Doing so enables packets of information to be generated by ground nodes and to be transmitted to destinations via different paths, depending on need and quality (Kato, pg. 1, Column 2).
Claim(s) 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima US 8995842, in view of Cong CN 108646257, Gat US 7126691, and Bik, in “LISA Satellite Formation Control,” from Advances in Space Research, 2007, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Clark US 20160363929.
Regarding claim 27, modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein the data transfer devices are drones. However, Clark discloses multiple drones (105a….n) that collect information and send back to the user device (103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with the drones to transfer data of Clark. Doing so allows more flexibility to control the drones through semi-automation, while collecting information closer to the earths surface.
Regarding claim 28, modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein the data transfer devices are semi- autonomous. However, Clark discloses drones that are semi-autonomous (Para. 17, drones can operate autonomously or semi-autonomously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with the semi-autonomous drones of Clark. Doing so gives the user greater flexibility and control over the data collection unit, while also affording flexibility and speed for the unit to control itself.
Regarding claim 29, modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein the data transfer devices are autonomous. However, Clark discloses drones that are autonomous (Para. 17, drones can operate autonomously or semi-autonomously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with the autonomous drones of Clark. Doing so gives flexibility to the user who can do other things while the drones flies itself, as well as speed up operations and data collection.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima US 8995842, in view of Cong CN 108646257, Gat US 7126691, and Bik, in “LISA Satellite Formation Control,” from Advances in Space Research, 2007, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Del Sorbo, “Electron Spin Polarization in Realistic Trajectories around the Magnetic Node of Two Counter-Propagating, Circularly polarized, Ultra-Intense Lasers,” from Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 2018.
Regarding claim 31, modified Kojima discloses nodes and equilateral triangle, but fails to disclose wherein the polarization of the laser beams is inverted between nodes of the equilateral triangle. However, Del Sorbo discloses that laser beams between nodes can have counter-propagating characteristics laser pulses (See Abstract; Note, Applicants claim only recite “inverted” which according to broadest reasonable interpretation means opposite directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with the counter-propagating laser pulses between nodes of Del Sorbo. Doing so helps enable the nodes to have an upper temporal limit to the polarization, and helps with more accurate calculations for effecting node communication between nodes.
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima US 8995842, in view of Cong CN 108646257, Gat US 7126691, and Bik, in “LISA Satellite Formation Control,” from Advances in Space Research, 2007, as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Liao, “Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,” from Nature, 2017.
Regarding claim 32, modified Kojima fails to disclose wherein the nodes vary polarization continuously until a connection is determined. However, Liao discloses that beam polarization can continue up until 1200 kilometers between satellite and the earth’s surface for an effective quantum key distribution (Applicant disclosing QKD in specification paragraph 208 for authentication; Liao, “Here we report the development and launch of a low-Earth-orbit satellite for implementing decoy-state QKD—a form of QKD that uses weak coherent pulses at high channel loss and is secure because photon-number-splitting eavesdropping can be detected. We achieve a kilohertz key rate from the satellite to the ground over a distance of up to 1,200 kilometres. This key rate is around 20 orders of magnitudes greater than that expected using an optical fibre of the same length. The establishment of a reliable and efficient space-to-ground link for quantum-state transmission paves the way to global scale quantum networks”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of filing, to have modified Kojima with the QKD study of Liao. Doing so enables users of the system to understand a specific distance for effective authentication and connection of the satellites to the node, and helps increase security of the system.
Examiner Notes; Reasons Over Subject Matter Eligibility
Claims 21-32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 112; set forth in this Office Action. Claims 33-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 112; set forth in this Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21 recites a system for data transfer, with data transfer devices as transmitting and receiving power, wherein each device is one of an aircraft, a satellite, and a ground-based device, wherein three data transfer devices, of the plurality of data transfer devices, are arranged as nodes of an equilateral triangle, and wherein data is transferred near-simultaneously between the nodes of the equilateral triangle via pairs of quantum-entangled laser beams. These claim limitations are also a series of physical acts performed by hardware (nodes that are data transfer devices) using entangled laser beams and polarization sequences and does not neatly recite an abstract idea exception. It is not “calculating,” “organizing information,” or “hedging risk”; it is a technical data-transfer protocol implemented with specific optical/quantum hardware. That places it in the realm of a patent-eligible “process” tied to a particular machine and improving a technological field (wireless/quantum communications), which examiners generally treat as eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two, even if some underlying physics or math is implicit.
In Claim 33, the prior art discloses “sequences are set via quantum entangled laser beams and communication being near-instantaneous,” but fails to disclose arrangement of three different nodes, while “sending an entangled pair of laser beams from the first node to the second and third nodes; receiving an entangled laser beam at each of the second and third nodes; polarizing in varied sequence the laser beam at the second node resulting in a polarized laser beam at the third node; sending a second entangled pair of laser beams from the second node to the first node and the third node; and receiving a second pair of entangled laser beams at each of the first and third nodes; and polarizing in the same varied sequence the laser beam at the third node resulting in a polarized laser beam at the first node; and sending a third entangled pair of laser beams from the third node to the second node and the first node; and receiving a third pair of entangled laser beams at each of the second and first nodes.” These claim limitations are also a series of physical acts performed by hardware (nodes that are data transfer devices) using entangled laser beams and polarization sequences and does not neatly recite an abstract idea exception. It is not “calculating,” “organizing information,” or “hedging risk”; it is a technical data-transfer protocol implemented with specific optical/quantum hardware. That places it in the realm of a patent-eligible “process” tied to a particular machine and improving a technological field (wireless/quantum communications), which examiners generally treat as eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two, even if some underlying physics or math is implicit. Claims 34-40 are dependent upon claim 33. However, claims 33-40 still do not overcome 112, as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yin, “Satellite to Ground Entanglement-Based Quantum Key Distribution,” from Physical Review Letters, 2017, discloses the communication of photons from satellite to ground using entanglement-based quantum particles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M DUCK whose telephone number is (469)295-9049. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRANDON M DUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3693