DETAILED ACTION
Claims 39-65 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The claimed invention is directed to “mathematical concepts” and “mental steps” without significantly more.
The claims recite:
Initializing the machine learning model
approximating posterior distribution
a set of discrete random variables
a training dataset
a set of supplementary continuous random variable
first and second prior distributions
samples representative of the at least one of the first prior distribution and the second prior distribution
a transforming distribution
conditional distribution
set of supplementary continuous random variables
conditioned on the… group of a set of discrete random variables
layer of a set of continuous variables
an auto-encoding loss on an input space comprising discrete or continuous variables
auto-encoding loss conditioned on the one or more samples
KL-divergence
backpropagating... a sum of the first and the second KL-divergence and the auto-encoding loss on the input space conditioned on the one or more samples
prior distribution over a first layer of additional continuous random variables
gradient of a KL-divergence
backpropagating... the first, the second and the third gradients of the KL-divergence to the input space
updating one or more parameters of the machine learning model based on the backpropagation
programmable parameters of the quantum processor
Claim 39
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “39. A method of unsupervised learning by a computational system, the method executed by circuitry including at least one processor and comprising…” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 39 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 39 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mathematical concepts”:
Initializing the machine learning model
approximating posterior distribution
a set of discrete random variables
a training dataset
a set of supplementary continuous random variable
first and second prior distributions
samples representative of the at least one of the first prior distribution and the second prior distribution
a transforming distribution
conditional distribution
set of supplementary continuous random variables
conditioned on the… group of a set of discrete random variables
layer of a set of continuous variables
an auto-encoding loss on an input space comprising discrete or continuous variables
auto-encoding loss conditioned on the one or more samples
KL-divergence
backpropagating... a sum of the first and the second KL-divergence and the auto-encoding loss on the input space conditioned on the one or more samples
prior distribution over a first layer of additional continuous random variables
gradient of a KL-divergence
backpropagating... the first, the second and the third gradients of the KL-divergence to the input space
updating one or more parameters of the machine learning model based on the backpropagation
programmable parameters of the quantum processor
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “classical digital processor”
(2) A “quantum processor”
(3) A “hybrid quantum-classical processor”
A “classical digital processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
A “quantum processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “quantum processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
A “hybrid quantum-classical processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “hybrid quantum-classical processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “classical digital processor”
(2) A “quantum processor”
(3) A “hybrid quantum-classical processor”
A “classical digital processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0046] References to a processor or at least one processor refer to hardware or circuitry, with discrete or integrated, for example single or multi- core microprocessors, microcontrollers, central processor units, digital signal processors, graphical processing units, programmable gate arrays, programmed logic controllers, and analog processors, for instance quantum processors. Various algorithms and methods and specific acts are executable via one or more processors.
Further, it recites:
[0125] Figure 4 shows a method 400 of unsupervised learning using a discrete variational auto-encoder. Execution of the method 400 by one or more processor-based devices may occur in accordance with the present system, devices, articles, and methods. Method 400, like other methods herein may be implemented by a series or set of processor-readable instructions executed by one or more processors (i.e., hardware circuitry).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “quantum processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Applicant's Specification, page 11, lines 2-15, where it recites:
Generalities
In the following description, some specific details are included to provide a thorough understanding of various disclosed embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art, however, will recognize that embodiments may be practiced without one or more of these specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures associated with quantum processors, such as quantum devices, coupling devices, and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail (i.e., well-known structures taught and claimed at a high level of generality. Note that the claimed “readouts” are “coupling devices”, as discussed above, often implemented using “dc-SQUIDs”) to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments of the present methods. Throughout this specification and the appended claims, the words "element" and "elements" are used to encompass, but are not limited to, all such structures, systems, and devices associated with quantum processors, as well as their related programmable parameters.
The argued “quantum processor” is a standard quantum processor that may use any quantum principles. The quantum processor’s “sampling” operation is a standard operation of such a processor based on the superposition and entanglement capabilities of the standard quantum processor (those capabilities are noted in the quote above.)
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “hybrid quantum-classical processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Green, et al., Quipper: A Scalable Quantum Programming Language, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 48, Issue 6, 16 JUN 2013, page 334, right col., sec. 2.1 through sec. 2.2, first para. recites:
2.1 Interacting with a quantum device
We can now describe the operation of an idealized quantum device known as Knill’s QRAM model for quantum computation [12]. In this model, we think of a quantum computer as a specialized device that is attached to and controlled by a classical computer, much in the way of a co-processor. The device holds n individually addressable qubits, for some fixed n. The operation of the quantum device is controlled by only two kinds of instructions, which can be interleaved. Instructions of the first kind are unitary operations. They take the form “apply the built-in unitary gate U to qubit k”, “apply the gate V to qubits j and k”, and so on. The quantum device responds with an acknowledgement that the operation has been performed, but there is no further information returned. Instructions of the second kind are measurements. They take the form “measure qubit k”. The quantum device responds with a measurement result, which is either 0 or 1. One can also add a third kind of instruction called initialization: “reset qubit k to 0”. However, this is derivable from the instructions already mentioned: namely, by first measuring qubit k, and then negating it if and only if the measurement outcome was 1.
2.2 Basic properties
In the above model of quantum computation, the control flow of an algorithm is purely classical: tests, loops, etc., are performed on the classical computer that controls the quantum co-processor. Both classical and quantum data are first class objects.
Further, Knill, Conventions for Quantum Pseudocode, report, LANL, June 1996, p. 1 recites:
1 Introduction
It is increasingly clear that practical quantum computing will take place on a classical machine with access to quantum registers. The classical machine performs off-line classical computations and controls the evolution of the quantum registers by initializing them in certain preparable states, operating on them with elementary unitary operations and measuring them when needed.
The argued “quantum processor” is a standard quantum processor that may use any quantum principles. The quantum processor’s “sampling” operation is a standard operation of such a processor based on the superposition and entanglement capabilities of the standard quantum processor (those capabilities are noted in the quote above.)
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 39 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 40
Claim 40 recites:
40. The method of claim 39 wherein the auto-encoding loss is a log-likelihood.
Applicant’s Claim 40 merely teaches mathematical “log-likelihood”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 40 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 41
Step 1 inquiry: Does this claim fall within a statutory category?
The preamble of the claim recites “41. A method of unsupervised learning by a computational system, the method executed by circuitry including at least one processor and comprising: …” Therefore, it is a “method” (or “process”), which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is: “YES”.
Step 2A (Prong One) inquiry:
Are there limitations in Claim 41 that recite abstract ideas?
YES. The following limitations in Claim 41 recite abstract ideas that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, they are “mathematical concepts”:
approximating posterior distribution
group of discrete random variables conditioned on an input space
group of supplementary continuous random variables
first and second prior distributions
samples representative of the at least one of the first prior distribution and the second prior distribution
prior distribution over a first layer of additional continuous random variables
gradient of a KL-divergence
backpropagating... the first, the second and the third gradients of the KL-divergence to the input space
updating the one or more parameters of the machine learning model based on backpropagation
programmable parameters of the quantum processor
Step 2A (Prong Two) inquiry:
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “classical digital processor”
(2) A “quantum processor”
(3) A “hybrid quantum-classical processor”
A “classical digital processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
A “quantum processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “quantum processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
A “hybrid quantum-classical processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This “hybrid quantum-classical processor” limitation does not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
The answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B inquiry:
Does the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim?
Applicant’s claims contain the following “additional elements”:
(1) A “classical digital processor”
(2) A “quantum processor”
(3) A “hybrid quantum-classical processor”
A “classical digital processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level and includes general purpose computers. Applicant’s Specification recites:
[0046] References to a processor or at least one processor refer to hardware or circuitry, with discrete or integrated, for example single or multi- core microprocessors, microcontrollers, central processor units, digital signal processors, graphical processing units, programmable gate arrays, programmed logic controllers, and analog processors, for instance quantum processors. Various algorithms and methods and specific acts are executable via one or more processors.
Further, it recites:
[0125] Figure 4 shows a method 400 of unsupervised learning using a discrete variational auto-encoder. Execution of the method 400 by one or more processor-based devices may occur in accordance with the present system, devices, articles, and methods. Method 400, like other methods herein may be implemented by a series or set of processor-readable instructions executed by one or more processors (i.e., hardware circuitry).
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “quantum processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level.
Applicant's Specification, page 11, lines 2-15, where it recites:
Generalities
In the following description, some specific details are included to provide a thorough understanding of various disclosed embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art, however, will recognize that embodiments may be practiced without one or more of these specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures associated with quantum processors, such as quantum devices, coupling devices, and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail (i.e., well-known structures taught and claimed at a high level of generality. Note that the claimed “readouts” are “coupling devices”, as discussed above, often implemented using “dc-SQUIDs”) to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments of the present methods. Throughout this specification and the appended claims, the words "element" and "elements" are used to encompass, but are not limited to, all such structures, systems, and devices associated with quantum processors, as well as their related programmable parameters.
The argued “quantum processor” is a standard quantum processor that may use any quantum principles. The quantum processor’s “sampling” operation is a standard operation of such a processor based on the superposition and entanglement capabilities of the standard quantum processor (those capabilities are noted in the quote above.)
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
A “hybrid quantum-classical processor” is a broad term which is described at a high level. Green, et al., Quipper: A Scalable Quantum Programming Language, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 48, Issue 6, 16 JUN 2013, page 334, right col., sec. 2.1 through sec. 2.2, first para. recites:
2.1 Interacting with a quantum device
We can now describe the operation of an idealized quantum device known as Knill’s QRAM model for quantum computation [12]. In this model, we think of a quantum computer as a specialized device that is attached to and controlled by a classical computer, much in the way of a co-processor. The device holds n individually addressable qubits, for some fixed n. The operation of the quantum device is controlled by only two kinds of instructions, which can be interleaved. Instructions of the first kind are unitary operations. They take the form “apply the built-in unitary gate U to qubit k”, “apply the gate V to qubits j and k”, and so on. The quantum device responds with an acknowledgement that the operation has been performed, but there is no further information returned. Instructions of the second kind are measurements. They take the form “measure qubit k”. The quantum device responds with a measurement result, which is either 0 or 1. One can also add a third kind of instruction called initialization: “reset qubit k to 0”. However, this is derivable from the instructions already mentioned: namely, by first measuring qubit k, and then negating it if and only if the measurement outcome was 1.
2.2 Basic properties
In the above model of quantum computation, the control flow of an algorithm is purely classical: tests, loops, etc., are performed on the classical computer that controls the quantum co-processor. Both classical and quantum data are first class objects.
Further, Knill, Conventions for Quantum Pseudocode, report, LANL, June 1996, p. 1 recites:
1 Introduction
It is increasingly clear that practical quantum computing will take place on a classical machine with access to quantum registers. The classical machine performs off-line classical computations and controls the evolution of the quantum registers by initializing them in certain preparable states, operating on them with elementary unitary operations and measuring them when needed.
The argued “quantum processor” is a standard quantum processor that may use any quantum principles. The quantum processor’s “sampling” operation is a standard operation of such a processor based on the superposition and entanglement capabilities of the standard quantum processor (those capabilities are noted in the quote above.)
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (i.e., there is no inventive concept in the claim). (See, M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(II)).
Therefore, the answer to the inquiry is “NO”, no additional elements provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the claimed abstract ideas the claimed abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 41 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 42
Claim 42 recites:
42. The method of claim 41 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a third gradient of a KL-divergence, or at least a stochastic approximation thereof, between an approximating posterior distribution over the third group of discrete random variables and a third prior distribution with respect to the approximating posterior distribution over the third group of discrete random variables and the third prior distribution comprises determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a third gradient of a KL-divergence, or at least a stochastic approximation thereof, between an approximating posterior distribution over the third group of discrete random variables and a third prior distribution with respect to the approximating posterior distribution over the third group of discrete random variables and the third prior distribution, the third prior distribution is comprising a restricted Boltzmann machine.
Applicant’s Claim 42 merely teaches a “gradient” (i.e., a mathematical derivative) of a “KL-divergence” number (i.e., a mathematical statistical distance) and a mathematical “prior distribution”. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 42 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 43
Claim 43 recites:
43. The method of claim 39 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a first KL-divergence comprises computing by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a loss function analytically.
Applicant’s Claim 43 merely teaches the mathematical computation of a function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 43 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 44
Claim 44 recites:
44. The method of claim 39 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a first KL-divergence comprises estimating by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a loss function stochastically.
Applicant’s Claim 44 merely teaches the mathematical computation/estimation of a function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 44 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 45
Claim 45 recites:
45. The method of claim 39 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a second KL-divergence comprises computing by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a loss function analytically.
Applicant’s Claim 45 merely teaches the mathematical computation of a function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 45 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 46
Claim 46 recites:
46. The method of claim 39 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a second KL-divergence comprises estimating by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a loss function stochastically.
Applicant’s Claim 46 merely teaches the mathematical computation/estimation of a function. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 46 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 47
Claim 47 recites:
47. The method of claim 39 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a second approximating posterior distribution and a first prior distribution, the first prior distribution over at least one layer of a set of continuous variables comprises determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a second approximating posterior distribution and a first prior distribution, the first prior distribution comprising a restricted Boltzmann machine.
Applicant’s Claim 47 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of a “posterior distribution” and a “prior distribution” (i.e., a restricted Boltzmann machine). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 47 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 48
Claim 48 recites:
48. The method of claim 39 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a second KL-divergence, or at least an approximation thereof, between the first approximating posterior distribution and a second prior distribution, the second prior distribution over a second group of the set of discrete random variables comprises determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a second KL-divergence, or at least an approximation thereof, between the first approximating posterior distribution and a second prior distribution, the second prior comprising a restricted Boltzmann machine.
Applicant’s Claim 48 merely teaches a “KL-divergence” number (i.e., a mathematical statistical distance). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 48 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 49
Claim 49 recites:
49. The method of claim 39 wherein sampling by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system from the second approximating posterior distribution includes at least one of generating samples by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system or causing samples to be generated by a digital processor.
Applicant’s Claim 49 merely teaches a mathematical sampling operation. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 49 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 50
Claim 50 recites:
50. The method of claim 39 wherein sampling by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system from the second approximating posterior distribution includes at least one of generating samples by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system or causing samples to be generated by a quantum processor.
Applicant’s Claim 50 merely teaches a mathematical sampling operation. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 50 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 51
Claim 51 recites:
51. The method of claim 41 wherein sampling by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system from a first group of supplementary continuous variables based on the first approximating posterior distribution includes at least one of generating samples by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system or causing samples to be generated by one of a digital processor and a quantum processor.
Applicant’s Claim 51 merely teaches a mathematical sampling operation. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 51 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 52
Claim 52 recites:
52. The method of claim 41 wherein sampling by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system from a second group of supplementary continuous variables based on the second approximating posterior distribution includes at least one of generating samples by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system or causing samples to be generated by one of a digital processor and a quantum processor.
Applicant’s Claim 52 merely teaches a mathematical sampling operation. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 52 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 53
Claim 53 recites:
53. The method of claim 41 wherein sampling by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system from the first layer of additional continuous random variables based on third first approximating posterior distribution includes at least one of generating samples by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system or causing samples to be generated by one of a digital processor and a quantum processor.
Applicant’s Claim 53 merely teaches a mathematical sampling operation. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 53 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 54
Claim 54 recites:
54. The method of claim 41 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a third approximating posterior distribution and a first prior distribution over a first layer of additional continuous random variables comprises determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a third approximating posterior distribution and a first prior distribution over a first layer of additional continuous random variables, the first prior distribution comprising a restricted Boltzmann machine.
Applicant’s Claim 54 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of a “posterior distribution” and a “prior distribution” (i.e., a restricted Boltzmann machine). It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 54 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 55
Claim 55 recites:
55. The method of claim 41 wherein determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a fourth approximating posterior distribution and a second prior distribution over a second layer of additional continuous random variables comprises determining by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system a fourth approximating posterior distribution and a second prior distribution over a second layer of additional continuous random variables, the second prior comprising a restricted Boltzmann machine.
Applicant’s Claim 55 merely teaches the mathematical calculation of a “posterior distribution” number and a “prior distribution” number. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 55 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 56
Claim 56 recites:
56. The method of claim 39, wherein operating the quantum processor to generate one or more states comprises performing a quantum annealing evolution.
Applicant’s Claim 56 merely teaches a generic performing a quantum annealing evolution. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 56 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 57
Claim 57 recites:
57. The method of claim 39, wherein programming the quantum processor comprises programming a plurality of qubits and a plurality of couplers and wherein reading out the one or more samples from the quantum processor comprises reading out states for the plurality of qubits, each set of states for the plurality of qubits comprising one of the one or more samples.
Applicant’s Claim 57 merely teaches generic programming of a plurality of qubits and a plurality of couplers and reading out states for the plurality of qubits. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 57 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 58
Claim 58 recites:
58. The method of claim 57, wherein programming the quantum processor comprises providing a configuration of a number of programmable parameters for the plurality of qubits and the plurality of couplers by a plurality of bias devices associated with the plurality of qubits and the plurality of couplers.
Applicant’s Claim 58 merely teaches a configuration of a number of programmable parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 58 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 59
Claim 59 recites:
59. The method of claim 41, wherein operating the quantum processor to generate one or more states comprises performing a quantum annealing evolution.
Applicant’s Claim 59 merely teaches a generic performing a quantum annealing evolution. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 59 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 60
Claim 60 recites:
60. The method of claim 41, wherein programming the quantum processor comprises programming a plurality of qubits and a plurality of couplers and wherein reading out the one or more samples from the quantum processor comprises reading out states for the plurality of qubits, each set of states for the plurality of qubits comprising the one or more samples.
Applicant’s Claim 60 merely teaches generic programming of a plurality of qubits and a plurality of couplers and reading out states for the plurality of qubits. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 60 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 61
Claim 61 recites:
61. The method of claim 60, wherein programming the quantum processor comprises providing a configuration of a number of programmable parameters for the plurality of qubits and the plurality of couplers by a plurality of bias devices associated with the plurality of qubits and the plurality of couplers.
Applicant’s Claim 61 merely teaches a configuration of a number of programmable parameters. It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 61 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 62
Claim 62 recites:
62. (New) The method of claim 39, further comprising post-processing the one or more samples from the quantum processor by the classical digital processor.
Applicant’s Claim 62 merely teaches applying a computer to unspecified data. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 62 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 63
Claim 63 recites:
63. (New) The method of claim 41, further comprising post-processing the one or more samples from the quantum processor by the classical digital processor.
Applicant’s Claim 63 merely teaches applying a computer to unspecified data. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 63 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 64
Claim 64 recites:
64. (New) The method of claim 39, wherein programming the quantum processor comprises programming a superconducting quantum processor comprising flux qubits.
Applicant’s Claim 64 merely teaches applying a computer to unspecified data. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Further, Applicant's Specification, page 11, lines 2-15, where it recites:
Generalities
In the following description, some specific details are included to provide a thorough understanding of various disclosed embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art, however, will recognize that embodiments may be practiced without one or more of these specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures associated with quantum processors, such as quantum devices, coupling devices, and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments of the present methods. Throughout this specification and the appended claims, the words "element" and "elements" are used to encompass, but are not limited to, all such structures, systems, and devices associated with quantum processors, as well as their related programmable parameters.
Note that the recital shows that the argued structures are “well-known.”
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 64 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 65
Claim 65 recites:
65. (New) The method of claim 41, wherein programming the quantum processor comprises programming a superconducting quantum processor comprising flux qubits.
Applicant’s Claim 65 merely teaches applying a computer to unspecified data. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(I) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Further, Applicant's Specification, page 11, lines 2-15, where it recites:
Generalities
In the following description, some specific details are included to provide a thorough understanding of various disclosed embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art, however, will recognize that embodiments may be practiced without one or more of these specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures associated with quantum processors, such as quantum devices, coupling devices, and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments of the present methods. Throughout this specification and the appended claims, the words "element" and "elements" are used to encompass, but are not limited to, all such structures, systems, and devices associated with quantum processors, as well as their related programmable parameters.
Note that the recital shows that the argued structures are “well-known.”
It does not integrate the abstract idea to a practical application, nor is it anything significantly more than the abstract idea. (See, 2106.05(a)(II).)
Claim 65 is, therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 OCT 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Argument 1
Claims 39-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to "mathematical concepts without significantly more".
The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's characterization of the claims. However, in the interests of expediting prosecution, the Applicant has amended claims 39 and 41 to recite "a hybrid quantum-classical computational system comprising a classical digital processor and a quantum processor in communication, at least one communication channel connecting the classical digital processor and the quantum processor, the method executed by the hybrid quantum-classical computational system". The Applicant submits that the claims as amended are directed to patentable subject matter.
Applicant’s argument is conclusory. The amendments are unpersuasive regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101. See the rejection above and arguments below.
Correction is required.
Argument 2
Examiner has summarily dismissed all the elements of the claims as being "well-understood, routine, conventional activity". For example, the Examiner has argued that "applying parameters settings to one or more devices in a quantum processor" and "reading out the states generated by a quantum processor" are "basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data". The Applicant respectfully submits that the programming and readout of a quantum processor is a complex physical process and should not be summarily dismissed as the equivalent of sending an email on a conventional computer.
However, regardless of how well-understood, routine, or conventional the Examiner considers a quantum processor and the operation thereof in isolation to be, the Applicant submits that this is not the proper test to be applied in Step 2A, Prong 1. Step 2A, Prong 1 asks if the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, or, as clarified in the USPTO August 4, 2025 Memorandum Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, "i.e., whether the claim sets forth or describes an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon." As further recited in that guidance:
Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis).
Consider for example, the published USPTO examples 39, which illustrates claim limitations that merely involve an abstract idea, and 47, which shows limitations that recite an abstract idea. The claim limitation "training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set" of example 39 does not recite a judicial exception. Even though "training the neural network" involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols. (emphasis added)
Claims 39 and 41 do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships. They are instead directed to a method of unsupervised learning of a machine learning model by a hybrid quantum-classical computational system, and set forth or describe a series of acts, directing how those acts are divided between the two processors making up the hybrid system.
The Applicant submits that the division of a series of computational tasks between two processors that operate on different physical principles based on which of the processors is physically best suited to perform a given computational task is not an abstract idea, regardless of if any of the individual computational tasks may be considered to involve a mathematical relationship. Dividing a method between two different processors that rely on different physical processes, such that each processor is used for the portions of the computation for which it is best suited, is not a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process, and as such is not an abstract idea. The Applicant submits that the claimed method constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, a mathematical calculation. As such, the Applicant submits that claims 39 and 41 are patentable subject matter under Step 2A Prong 1.
Applicant's Specification, page 11, lines 2-15, where it recites:
Generalities
In the following description, some specific details are included to provide a thorough understanding of various disclosed embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art, however, will recognize that embodiments may be practiced without one or more of these specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures associated with quantum processors, such as quantum devices, coupling devices, and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail (i.e., well-known structures taught and claimed at a high level of generality. Note that the claimed “readouts” are “coupling devices”, as discussed above, often implemented using “dc-SQUIDs”) to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments of the present methods. Throughout this specification and the appended claims, the words "element" and "elements" are used to encompass, but are not limited to, all such structures, systems, and devices associated with quantum processors, as well as their related programmable parameters.
Note that the recital shows that the argued structures are “well-known.” Note that Applicant's Specification, page 1, lines 24-26 and page 2, lines 1-10, where it recites:
Quantum Processor
A quantum processor is a computing device that can harness quantum physical phenomena (such as superposition, entanglement, and quantum tunneling) unavailable to non-quantum devices. A quantum processor may take the form of a superconducting quantum processor. A superconducting quantum processor may include a number of qubits and associated local bias devices, for instance two or more superconducting qubits. An example of a qubit is a flux qubit. A superconducting quantum processor may also employ coupling devices (i.e., "couplers") providing communicative coupling between qubits. Further details and embodiments of exemplary quantum processors that may be used in conjunction with the present systems and devices are described in, for example, U.S. Patents 7,533,068; 8,008,942; 8,195,596; 8,190,548; and 8,421,053.
Regarding 7,533,068 B2 recites:
5.4.4 Readout
Methods of reading out the state of the quantum devices in an integrated circuit (e.g., quantum processor) may comprise initializing a readout device and measuring a physical property of the readout device.
***
The readout device may comprise a dc-SQUID magnetometer inductively connected to the quantum device, in which case determining the state of the quantum device comprises measuring a voltage or a current from the dc-SQUID magnetometer. This voltage or current can then be converted into a value representing the magnetic field at the quantum device.
Considering the first recital in response to this argument, the readout is “well-known.”
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
Correction is required.
Argument 3
The Applicant submits that claims 39 and 41 integrate any allegedly recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. As set out in the USPTO August 4, 2025 Memorandum Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101,"In computer-related technologies, examiners can conclude that claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two by finding that a claim reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer" and further, "Claims that are determined to improve computer capabilities or improve technology or a technical field support a finding that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself."
The claims are directed to methods that employ a hybrid quantum-classical computational system to perform unsupervised learning of a machine learning model by dividing the acts between the two processors. The Applicant submits that the claimed hybrid quantum classical computational system is a practical application requiring two different processors that operate on different physical principles connected in communication and performing acts in cooperation between the two processors in order to complete the claimed method. The claimed subject matter provides technical improvements over conventional systems by addressing challenges in sampling during machine learning by generating samples using a quantum processor. As recited on page 23, lines 6-16 of the present specification:
The systems and methods described herein adapt machine learning architectures and methods to exploit QPUs to advantageously achieve improved machine performance. Improved machine performance typically includes reduced training time and or increased generalization accuracy.
Optimization and sampling can be computational bottlenecks in machine learning systems and methods. The systems and methods described herein integrate the QPU into the machine learning pipeline (including the architecture and methods) to perform optimization and or sampling with improved performance over classical hardware. The machine learning pipeline can be modified to suit QPUs that can be realized in practice.
The Applicant submits that even if each component of the claimed hybrid quantum classical computational system were considered to be individually known, the claims as a whole are directed to patentable subject matter under Step 2A Prong 2 as the claimed hybrid computational system is a specific practical implementation. Furthermore, the recited division of acts as part of the training of a machine learning model is a specific practical implementation of the described method.
Furthermore, as set out in "The 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update)" USPTO guidance document: "Note: the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis does not include the "well understood, routine, conventional" consideration in MPEP 2106.05(d). This is only considered in Step 2B." This is similarly stated in the January 2019 PEG Introductory Training Module: "As noted on the preceding slide, there is no evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional ("WURC") activity in Prong Two. Examiners should give weight to all of the claimed additional elements in Prong Two, even if those elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity. Because Step 2A excludes consideration of WURC, a claim that includes WURC elements may still integrate an exception into a practical application. Do not evaluate WURC unless the analysis proceeds to Step 2B." (emphasis added). Further, the guidance recites that a limitation that is indicative of integration into a practical application include "Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field".
The present claims are directed to an improvement to existing computer technology and integrate the allegedly abstract idea into a practical application in the form of a hybrid computing system.
Furthermore, the claimed hybrid quantum-classical computational system provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer by using both classical digital computation and quantum computation in combination within a computational system to provide the claimed method of unsupervised learning to improve the overall operation of the computational system. As such, the Applicant submits that claims 39 and 41 provide a practical application and are patentable subject matter under Step 2A Prong 2.
Firstly, the argued “division of acts between a quantum processor and a classical processor” was not claimed by Applicant until the presently amended claims provided that limitation.
Secondly, the argued, and now claimed “division of acts” is still well, understood, routine, and conventional, as shown in: Green, et al., Quipper: A Scalable Quantum Programming Language, arXiv:1304.3390v1, 11 APR 2013, pp. 1-10 (Specifically, in page 2, right col., sec. 2.2, first para.)
The claimed invention is simply used in such a structure.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 4
Step 2B: The Examiner has summarily dismissed the Applicant's arguments with respect to Step 2B and has merely responded that "unsupervised learning" and the use of "a quantum processor to perform sampling" are both well-understood, routine, and conventional. However, the claims contain substantially more than these two isolated elements. In particular, the Applicant submits that the claimed division of acts between a quantum processor and a classical processor within a single method of unsupervised learning of a machine learning model amounts to significantly more than any alleged mathematical concepts found in claims 39 and16 41. The Applicant submits that it is not well known, routine, or conventional to employ a hybrid quantum-classical computational system to perform the claimed series of acts, and in particular there is no evidence that it is known or contemplated in the art to divide the claimed acts between the two processors making up the hybrid system as claimed. As such, the Applicant submits that claims 39 and 41 are patentable subject matter under Step 2B.
Firstly, the argued “division of acts between a quantum processor and a classical processor” was not claimed by Applicant until the presently amended claims provided that limitation.
Secondly, the argued, and now claimed “division of acts” is still well, understood, routine, and conventional, as shown in: Green, et al., Quipper: A Scalable Quantum Programming Language, arXiv:1304.3390v1, 11 APR 2013, pp. 1-10 (Specifically, in page 2, right col., sec. 2.2, first para.)
Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
The rejections stand.
Argument 5
The Applicant submits that claims 39 and 41 are directed to patentable subject matter. As claims 40 and 42-65 depend from claims 39 and 41, the Applicant submits that they are also directed to a practical application for at least the reasons given above, as well as for the limitations recited in those dependent claims. The Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Claims 39 and 41 are shown to not contain eligible matter. Therefore there is no such eligible matter that may be incorporated by reference to the dependent claims.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive.
Correction is required.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wilbert L. Starks, Jr., who may be reached Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST. or via telephone at (571) 272-3691 or email: Wilbert.Starks@uspto.gov.
If you need to send an Official facsimile transmission, please send it to (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful the Examiner’s Supervisor (SPE), Kakali Chaki, may be reached at (571) 272-3719.
Hand-delivered responses should be delivered to the Receptionist @ (Customer Service Window Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22313), located on the first floor of the south side of the Randolph Building.
Finally, information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Moreover, status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) toll-free @ 1-866-217-9197.
/WILBERT L STARKS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
WLS
05 FEB 2026