DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 08 January 2026 for application 17/088,398 filed 03 November 2020.
Claim(s) 1, 17-18 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 2, 19-20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3-18, 21-24 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3-18, 21-24 is/are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-18, 21-24 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement in a quantum simulator. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The simulator is simply a computer tool used to execute the data. No improvement is made to the simulator. In fact, the simulator is not changed in any way. If an improvement exists, it is, at best, in the abstract idea. The claims recite organizing a quantum circuit for simulation. The changes are in the circuit. Therefore, any improvement would be in the organization of gates to generate the circuit design. The simulator simply executes the circuit. As stated in the MPEP, the improvement the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant next argues that in light of the August 2025 memo, that the claims should be eligible as they recite an improved configuration of a quantum simulator. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as this is a misinterpretation of the memo. The memo was release to clarify the steps of an eligibility analysis as recited in the MPEP, not to change the analysis. Further, the memo does create automatic eligibility for any given technological area. As detailed below, the analysis was performed on the claims and the claims were found to be ineligible. Examiner also notes that the Office release several AI-related SME examples (Examples 47-49) to assist with the analysis of AI-related technologies.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-18, 21-24 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 3-18, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of obtain a first sequence of quantum gates …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of which when executed on the quantum circuit simulator requires performing matrix-vector multiplications on the quantum circuit simulator, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses multiplications.
The limitation of generate a second sequence of quantum gates, which is a sub-sequence of the first sequence of quantum gates …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determine a local qubits set and a global qubits set based on the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of for all qubits a particular quantum gate acts on, add them to the local qubits set in response to the particular quantum gate being included in the second sequence of quantum gates or add them to a set of locked qubits in response to the particular quantum gate being skipped in the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generate a set of clusters of quantum gates based on the second sequence of quantum gates, including ordering the clusters in the set such that a cluster including more quantum gates is before a cluster including less quantum gates, wherein each cluster includes a subset of the quantum gates of the second sequence of quantum gates merged together …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generate a third sequence of quantum gates containing all quantum gates from the second sequence of quantum gates, according to an order of the clusters in the set of clusters, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – device, quantum circuit, quantum computer, processor, memory, processor-executable instructions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit simulator, first greedy algorithm with backtracking, second greedy algorithm without backtracking. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites provide the local qubits set and the global qubits set to the quantum circuit simulator; output the third sequence of quantum gates to the quantum circuit simulator which is simply applying the simulator recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein execution of the third sequence of quantum gates and the local and global qubits sets configure the quantum circuit simulator to perform fewer matrix-vector multiplications or reduced memory access operations during matrix-vector multiplications relative to execution of the first sequence of quantum gates which is simply additional information regarding the simulator and data, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
device, quantum circuit, quantum computer, processor, memory, processor-executable instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the simulator amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
quantum circuit simulator, first greedy algorithm with backtracking, second greedy algorithm without backtracking amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the simulator and data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the device of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein when generating the set of clusters of quantum gates, the instructions further cause the processor to generate the clusters based on a maximum possible number of qubits in a cluster.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the clusters of quantum gates and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the clusters of quantum gates do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of pick one-by-one all possible combinations of qubits associated with the second sequence of quantum gates based on the maximum possible number of qubits in a cluster, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of construct a cluster for each combination, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of select the cluster with the greatest number of quantum gates in the cluster, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of maintain a set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of include a quantum gate into a cluster in response to a matrix representation of the quantum gate being diagonal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skip a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits that quantum gate acts on not belonging to a picked combination of qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skip a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits that quantum gate acts on being in the set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of add all qubits a quantum gate acts on to the set of locked qubits in response to that quantum gate being skipped, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of include a quantum gate into a cluster in response to that quantum gate being included, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of determine a cluster including a maximum number of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of output the quantum gates of the determined cluster, by inserting the output quantum gates into the third sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of remove the output quantum gates from the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of determine the local qubits set and/or the global qubits set based on a maximum number of local and/or global qubits, respectively, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of fuse a quantum gate acting on a single qubit with an adjacent quantum gate in the first sequence of quantum gates acting on a subset of qubits including the same single qubit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of include, into the second sequence of quantum gates, quantum gates that operate on at most a maximum number of local qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of in response to the first sequence of quantum gates including at least one quantum gate acting on a single qubit and another quantum gate acting on the same qubit and on at least one other qubit, include, into the second sequence of quantum gates, this single-qubit gate together with the other multi-qubit gate, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of create a branch of the first greedy algorithm with a quantum gate included into the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the device of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein when generating the second sequence of quantum gates, the instructions further cause the processor to create at most a maximum number of branches of the first greedy algorithm.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the greedy algorithm and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the greedy algorithm do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of construct the second sequence of quantum gates with as many gates as possible, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of test each gate from the first sequence of quantum gates and skip or include it into the second sequence of quantum gates based on the result of the test, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of maintain a set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skip a quantum gate in response to application of this quantum gate requiring more qubits than a predetermined threshold to be local, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skip a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits the quantum gate operates on being in a locked qubits set, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of add all qubits a quantum gate acts on to the set of locked qubits in response to that quantum gate being skipped, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of include a quantum gate into the second sequence of quantum gates in response to a matrix representation of that quantum gate being diagonal and do not add qubits a quantum gate acts on to the set of local qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of include a quantum gate into the second sequence of quantum gates in response to all qubits that quantum gate operates on being already in the local qubits set, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of construct a set of all qubits, on which quantum gates from the first sequence of quantum gates act, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of include, in the local qubits set, all qubits on which quantum gates from the second sequence of quantum gates act, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of include, in the global qubits set, all qubits which are in the set of all qubits and not in the local qubits set, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the device of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of a quantum circuit simulator comprising the device according to claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the quantum circuit simulator and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the quantum circuit simulator do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of obtaining a first sequence of quantum gates …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of which when executed on the quantum circuit simulator requires performing matrix-vector multiplications on the quantum circuit simulator, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses multiplications.
The limitation of generating a second sequence of quantum gates, which is a sub-sequence of the first sequence of quantum gates …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining a local qubits set and a global qubits set based on the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of for all qubits a particular quantum gate acts on, add them to the local qubits set in response to the particular quantum gate being included in the second sequence of quantum gates or add them to a set of locked qubits in response to the particular quantum gate being skipped in the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a set of clusters of quantum gates based on the second sequence of quantum gates, including ordering the clusters in the set such that a cluster including more quantum gates is before a cluster including less quantum gates, wherein each cluster includes a subset of the quantum gates of the second sequence of quantum gates merged together …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a third sequence of quantum gates containing all quantum gates from the second sequence of quantum gates, according to an order of clusters in the set of clusters, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit, quantum computer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit simulator, first greedy algorithm with backtracking, second greedy algorithm without backtracking. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites providing the local qubits set and the global qubits set to the quantum circuit simulator; outputting the third sequence of quantum gates to the quantum circuit simulator which is simply applying the simulator recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein execution of the third sequence of quantum gates and the local and global qubits sets configure the quantum circuit simulator to perform fewer matrix- vector multiplications or reduced memory access operations during matrix-vector multiplications relative to execution of the first sequence of quantum gates which is simply additional information regarding the simulator and data, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
device, quantum circuit, quantum computer, processor, memory, processor-executable instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the simulator amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
quantum circuit simulator, first greedy algorithm with backtracking, second greedy algorithm without backtracking amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the simulator and data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a(n) computer readable medium, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable medium comprising ... a device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of obtaining a first sequence of quantum gates …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of which when executed on the quantum circuit simulator requires performing matrix-vector multiplications on the quantum circuit simulator, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses multiplications.
The limitation of generating a second sequence of quantum gates, which is a sub-sequence of the first sequence of quantum gates …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining a local qubits set and a global qubits set based on the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of for all qubits a particular quantum gate acts on, add them to the local qubits set in response to the particular quantum gate being included in the second sequence of quantum gates or add them to a set of locked qubits in response to the particular quantum gate being skipped in the second sequence of quantum gates, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a set of clusters of quantum gates based on the second sequence of quantum gates, including ordering the clusters in the set such that a cluster including more quantum gates is before a cluster including less quantum gates, wherein each cluster includes a subset of the quantum gates of the second sequence of quantum gates merged together …, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating a third sequence of quantum gates, which contains all quantum gates from the second sequence of quantum gates, according to an order of clusters in the set of clusters, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer readable medium, program code, processor, device, quantum circuit, quantum computer. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit simulator, first greedy algorithm with backtracking, second greedy algorithm without backtracking. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites providing the local qubits set and the global qubits set to the quantum circuit simulator; outputting the third sequence of quantum gates to the quantum circuit simulator which is simply applying the simulator recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein execution of the third sequence of quantum gates and the local and global qubits sets configure the quantum circuit simulator to perform fewer matrix- vector multiplications or reduced memory access operations during matrix-vector multiplications relative to execution of the first sequence of quantum gates which is simply additional information regarding the simulator and data, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
device, quantum circuit, quantum computer, processor, memory, processor-executable instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the simulator amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
quantum circuit simulator, first greedy algorithm with backtracking, second greedy algorithm without backtracking amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the simulator and data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of create a branch of the first greedy algorithm with a quantum gate from the first sequence of quantum gates skipped, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of create a branch of the greedy algorithm with a quantum gate from the first sequence of quantum gates skipped, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of maintaining a set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of including a quantum gate into a cluster in response to a matrix representation of the quantum gate being diagonal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skipping a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits that quantum gate acts on not belonging to a picked combination of qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skipping a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits that quantum gate acts on being in the set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding all qubits a quantum gate acts on to the set of locked qubits in response to that quantum gate being skipped, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of including a quantum gate into a cluster in response to that quantum gate being included, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a(n) computer readable medium, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable medium comprising ... a device for scheduling quantum gates and qubits for use by a quantum circuit simulator to simulate execution of a quantum circuit on a quantum computer.
The limitation of maintaining a set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of including a quantum gate into a cluster in response to a matrix representation of the quantum gate being diagonal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skipping a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits that quantum gate acts on not belonging to a picked combination of qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of skipping a quantum gate in response to at least one of the qubits that quantum gate acts on being in the set of locked qubits, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of adding all qubits a quantum gate acts on to the set of locked qubits in response to that quantum gate being skipped, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of including a quantum gate into a cluster in response to that quantum gate being included, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125