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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but are respectfully unpersuasive. Applicant argues that amended limitation d is not a judicial exception and specifically not a mathematical concept. It is argued that the claim is similar to example 38 and 39 of the subject matter eligibility examples in that math is not being recited even if some limitations are based on mathematical concepts. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Computing an estimate of ratios of partition functions is inherently a mathematical calculation, especially in consideration of specification [0157]
PNG
media_image1.png
136
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Applicant argues that regardless, the claim improves the technology or field of quantum computation. It is argued that the invention improves the estuation of physical quantities through the disclosed limitations. However any alleged improvements appeared to be directed to the estimation of observables. Thus this improvement is directed to an improvement to the abstract idea and therefore still not eligible.
Applicant further argues that regardless the claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception. It is argued that the claim recites elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that computing the sample estimate isn’t well-understood routine, however this limitation is directed to the abstract idea and therefore the step 2b analysis does not apply.
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, [using 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) using the digital computer, computing a sample estimate of a ratio of partition functions of a target Hamiltonian and the base Hamiltonian based 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 (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)
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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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