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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim in view of the claim amendments have been fully considered but are respectfully unpersuasive.
Applicant initially argues that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception, particularly in light of the claim amendments. Upon review of the amendments, it is not clear where this argument is directed towards. The amended limitations appear to amount to simply adding a computer and a model. The use of a computer and a model is typically not enough to overcome the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that in the follow step, the claims apply a particular machine and argues that the sampling device is not a generic computer but rather a quantum computer or computer programmed to simulate a quantum computer. In response, Examiner argues that these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f). The computer is not described in any detail or functionality and therefore is interpreted as a generic computer used as a tool. Applicant argues that the claimed invention uses the estimate of a ratio of partition functions to adapt a problem that the sampling device can solve and therefore integrates judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments however it is respectfully not clear what the practical application is, even in light of Applicant’s response. As claimed, the claims compute ratios on a computer. This still appears to be mathematical calculations, run on a generic computer.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the technology or field of quantum computation. It is argued that the claims extends the functionality of the sampling device by allowing it solve a a problem it could not before, similar to the above arguments. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments. However it does not appear that the claims improve quantum computing, but rather use quantum computing (recited at a high level of generality) instead to solve problems that quantum computing is inherently good at. [0002]-[0003] of the specification describe the general state of the art, however it concludes by vaguely stating that there is a need to overcome at least one of the limitations associated with computers. Therefore it isn’t clear what the improvement is.
Applicant argues that in step 2B, the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An argument is made that the claims are analogous to Berkheimer because the elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. In response, Examiner states that no elements were identified as WURC,
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.
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method/process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations of:
(a) obtaining, [at the digital computer], an indication of a base Hamiltonian and an indication of an observable representative of the physical property or quantity: (mental judgement/observation);
(d) at the digital computer, computing an estimate of a ratio of partition functions of a target Hamiltonian and the base Hamiltonian based at least in part on the plurality of samples from the probability distribution defined by the base Hamiltonian, (mathematical concepts, estimating a value, as well as mental observation/evaluation)
(e) computing an estimate for the expectation value of the observable with respect to the probability distribution defined by the target Hamiltonian based on the ratio of partition functions, thereby extending a functionality of the sampling device (mathematical computation)
As shown above, the claims recite numerous amounts that amount to mental judgments and mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The limitations of:
a digital computer (generic computer to carry out the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f))
the sampling device (generic computer to carry out the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f))
(b) setting a sampling device using the base Hamiltonian; (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer MPEP 2106.05(f))
(c) obtaining, at the sampling device, a plurality of samples from a probability distribution defined by the base Hamiltonian; (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) wherein the sampling device is a quantum computer or a computer programmed to simulate a quantum computer (applying the abstract idea on generic computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f));
[…] wherein the target Hamiltonian comprises a model which is not configurable on the sampling device (applying the abstract idea to a particular field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h))
As shown above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The limitations of:
a digital computer (generic computer to carry out the abstract idea)
the sampling device (generic computer to carry out the abstract idea)
(b) setting a sampling device using the base Hamiltonian; (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer)
(c) obtaining, using the sampling device, a plurality of samples from a probability distribution defined by the base Hamiltonian; (insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering);
As shown above, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites obtaining an indication of a target and updating parameters to perform estimation, mathematical concepts along with insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites one base Hamiltonian, further elaboration on obtaining an indication or mental process.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a parametrized base Hamiltonian, further elaboration on obtaining an indication or mental process.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites updating one optimization protocol based on a gradient and derivative, mathematical calculations and further mental judgements/evaluations.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites more updating using an optimization protocol, mathematical calculations and further mental judgements/evaluations.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites obtaining Hamiltonians and more estimation, mathematical concepts and mental observations.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites estimating a difference between entropies, mathematical calculations and mental evaluations.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites an energy function or n-point function, mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the sampling device comprises various devices, generic computer devices to carry out the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites further estimation and approximation, mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 15, using a function approximator, mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 10 and is subject to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites training using reinforcement learning, mathematical concepts of generically training a learning model.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites utility functions, mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 17 and is subject to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 17 and is subject to the same rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is noted that no individual claim feature renders the claims as a whole patentable. Each limitation indicated as allowable renders the claim patentable only when taken in combination with the other claim limitations.
No prior art has been cited for claims 1-10 and 14-20. The claims however remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jasche, Jens, and Francisco S. Kitaura. "Fast Hamiltonian sampling for large-scale structure inference." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 407.1 (2010): 29-42. which generally teaches a way for Hamiltonian sampling
Higgott et al. US 2021/0216900 which generally teaches a way of estimating an energy level of a physical system
Johnson et al. US 2020/0057957 which generally teaches a quantum optimization system and estimating a Hamiltonian
Amin et al. US 2018/0308007 which generally teachings a way of creating and using quantum Boltzmann machines
Merz et al. US 2005/0027458 which generally teaches a way for using quantum mechanical Hamiltonians to predictions.
The references however do not teach the claim limitations above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN W FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-4623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, MIRANDA HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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.
KEVIN W FIGUEROA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2124
/Kevin W Figueroa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights