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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2026 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 02/14/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: QKD needs to be spelled out.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: PRBS needs to be spelled out.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second line should read “each of which are optically coupled”. Furthermore, the recitation of backbone data/signal line needs an “a” in front of it.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of transmitter system” should read “…systems”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plurality of receiver system” should read “…systems”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of splitter needs an “a” in front of it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/948721, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
According to page 1 of the present Specification and the Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed 02/14/2025, the present application claims priority as a 371 to PCT/IF2023/051022, which itself claims priority to U.S. application no. 17/948721 as a continuation. However, when looking to U.S. application no. 17/948721, it appears from the lack of similar figures and description to that of the present application that not all the present claims are taught. Going claim by claim (NOTE: all paragraph citations are to the published applications and U.S. application no. 17/948721 will be referred to as “the parent application”):
Support in the parent application appears to be present:
Claim 1 –taught in Figure 9 of the parent application
Claim 3 – taught generally in paragraph [0014] of the parent application
Claim 5 – taught generally in paragraph [0101] of the parent application
Claim 7 – taught generally in paragraph [0098] of the parent application
Support in the parent application is not present:
Claim 2 – taught in Figure 2A of the present application as link C3 to and from C1-Comm. No such bidirectional communication channel is present in Figure 9 of the parent application nor is it disclosed
Claim 4 – not found in the parent application after text searching
Claim 9 – DWDM is generally taught paragraph [0115] of the parent application but wavelength ranges are not present
Claim 10 – taught in Figure 2C of the present application. No such figure exists in the parent application
Claim 11 – taught in Figure 3 of the present application. No such figure exists in the parent application
Claim 12 - depends on claim 11
Claim 14 – taught in Figure 4A of the present application. No such figure exists in the parent application
Claims 17, 19, 20, and 22-24 – depend on claim 14
Claim 25 – not found in the parent application after text searching
Claim 26– not found in the parent application after text searching
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Applicant, due to the deficiencies in the parent application, did not have possession of claims 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-26 at the time of filing of the parent application and therefore should not be afford a filing date earlier than that of the PCT application which is 09/20/2023.
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 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-26 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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, due to the lack of support in the parent application, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Applicant did not have possession of the invention recited in claims 2, 4, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-26 at the time the parent application was filed.
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 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-26 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim does not appear to have a definitive preamble ending with a “:” leading to confusion on what is included in the communication network and what is not. Furthermore, the claim recites that the at least one receiver system is optically coupled to the plurality of transmitter systems “for transmission of synchronization signals”. However, when reading the Specification of the published application, paragraph [0032] indicates that electrical signals can be used for such synchronization signals. Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant intends to limit the synchronization signals to the optical domain with this recitation or if the optical coupling is incidental (e.g only for the sparse data/signals). It is also unclear if the receiver actually sends such synchronization signals or if this is merely an intended use of the receiver system based on the current claim language. In addition, the claim ends with “for synchronization of transmission of data/signals from each one of the plurality of transmitter systems to said at least one receiver system over a sparse data/signals unidirectional communication channel”. It is unclear if this is merely a result to be achieved by sending the synchronization signals with the additional data, if the transmitter systems are a part of the communication network, or if the claim covers actually sending sparse/data signals. Finally, only a singular spare data/signals unidirectional channel is claimed from transmitting signals from the plurality of transmitter systems to the receiver system. When looking to Figure 2A and the supporting paragraphs of the present application, it shows individual channels C1-i going from respective transmitters to the receiver. This leads to confusion on if a singular channel is actually intended or a plurality as shown in the Figures.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22-26 do not cure claim 1 of these issues and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the preamble of the claim states that the network is configured for “one of the following” and gives three clauses separated by semicolons. However, the third clause refers to “the selected portion” which was previously recited in the second clause. It is therefore unclear what the alternatives are supposed to be in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites "all of the communication channels". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only a single communications channel has been previously recited. Dependent claim 12 does not cure claim 11 of these issues and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites functional limitations attributed to “the communication network”. However, no device for performing such functions has been positively recited in the communication network leaving what is performing the function of “assigning” unclear.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the communication”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the claim recites “the communication channels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only a single communications channel has been previously recited. Dependent claims 15, 17, 19-24 do not cure claim 14 of these issues and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19, the claim refers to “each transmitter interface unit” while only one transmitter interface unit has been previously recited in claim 14. The claim further recites “the transmitter system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 20 and 22 do not cure claim 19 of these issues and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, line 2 recites “the bypass communication line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the claim refers to “each receiver interface unit” while only one transmitter interface unit has been previously recited in claim 14. The claim further recites “the transmitter system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claim 24 does not cure claim 23 of this issue, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the limitation "the receiver systems". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites determining “length” but does not specify what the length is of leading to a clarity issue.
Conclusion
Although no prior art is used against the claims, this is not an indication that it/they is/are allowable. See MPEP 2173.06, section II, second paragraph. The 112 issues cause a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). It is therefore difficult for the Examiner to properly search for prior art for the invention.
The Examiner attempted to contact an attorney of record twice to discuss the above issues but was unable to reach one in a timely fashion.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maeda et al, “Technologies for Quantum Key Distribution Networks Integrated With Optical Communication Networks” (published in IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN QUANTUM ELECTRONICS , VOL.15, NO.6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009, pages 1591-1601) generally teaches a communication network comprising an optical receiver and a plurality of optical transmitters (see Maeda Figure 4), the optical receiver configured to send a clock signal over a unidirectional synchronization channel to the optical transmitters (see Figure 4, clock signal in “Bob” to remote “Alices” and caption) and the optical transmitters configured to send signals to the optical receiver over a unidirectional sparse data/signals communication channel (see Figure 4, “quantum channel” from “Alices” to “Bob” and caption).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
