DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 20 August 2025. Claims 1, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are pending.
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 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 19, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rigetti (US 2022/0084085) in view of Pellerano (US 2024/0022248), Kaasten (US 2004/0172423), Kerns (US 5,596,736), Hogaboam (US 2021/0173660), Gesek (US 2022/0012621), and Diestelhorst (US 2015/0205721)
Regarding claim 1, Rigetti discloses a method, comprising: detecting, by a quantum computing device, a synchronization trigger event corresponding to a first qubit of a first quantum file, the synchronization trigger event comprising a particular synchronization event type of a plurality of synchronization event types (¶¶78, 122, 124, 159; storing/broadcasting qubit states read during a variety of operations, qubit state hygiene, and updated variables); determining, by the quantum computing device, one or more synchronization operations from a plurality of synchronization operations based on the particular synchronization event type (¶¶78, 122, 124, 159); and responsive to detecting the synchronization trigger event, performing the one or more synchronization operations on a first destination synchronization file based on the synchronization trigger event (¶¶70, 122, 124, 159), wherein performing the one or more synchronization operations comprises determining that the second qubit is in an access-safe state, and obtaining write access to the second qubit (¶¶118, 125).
In particular, Rigetti discloses a distributed quantum system having caches/‘qaches’ that store shared information such as qubit states and stored variables, and maintains consistency of that information between caches by broadcasting changes. The Specification indicates that types of synchronization triggers and the corresponding synchronization operation includes writing the data value stored by the qubit when the synchronization trigger is a change in the data value stored by the qubit, and writing the qubit state when the synchronization trigger is a change in the qubit state (¶17); i.e., the synchronization operation is simply updating the information that is changed. Rigetti clearly discloses these limitations, since the caches store different qubit information and maintains consistency of the cached information by broadcasting the changes.
If Rigetti is found to be unclear regarding the synchronization file, Pellerano also discloses responsive to detecting the synchronization trigger event, performing one or more synchronization operations on a destination synchronization file based on the synchronization trigger event (¶¶49, 51, 86). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Rigetti and Pellerano, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the substitution of one known element with another, to produce merely the predictable results of sharing stored information between processing elements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Rigetti discloses a quantum system including a shared ‘qache’ to store qubit states. Pellerano teaches that qubit information can be shared by storing it in register files or memory. The teachings of Pellerano are directly applicable to Rigetti in the same way, so that Rigetti would similarly store qubit states to register files in order to share information between processing elements.
If Rigetti is found to be unclear regarding the synchronization trigger event comprising a particular synchronization event type of a plurality of synchronization event types and determining one or more synchronization operations from a plurality of synchronization operations based on the particular synchronization event type, Kaasten also discloses the same (¶24). In particular, Kaasten explicitly teaches what persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand to already be present in Rigetti: that the synchronization operation is performed based on the change that needs to be synchronized. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Rigetti, Pellerano, and Kaasten, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of maintaining consistency of shared information by propagating changes. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Rigetti discloses a distributed quantum system that stores different qubit information in caches and maintains consistency of the information between caches. Kaasten teaches that changes to the information are synchronized by propagating those specific changes. The teachings of Kaasten are directly applicable to Rigetti in the same way, so that Rigetti’s distributed system would similarly synchronize qubit information by propagating the particular changes to the information.
Rigetti does not appear to explicitly disclose that the particular synchronization event type comprises a notification of an upcoming deallocation of the first qubit, and that the synchronization trigger event is notification of the upcoming deallocation of the first qubit. However, synchronizing information in resources based on notification of upcoming deallocation of those resources is well-known, as taught by Kerns (col. 6, lines 51-59), and the analogous deallocation of resources in a quantum system such as Rigetti is the deallocation of qubits, as taught by Hogaboam (¶102).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Rigetti, Pellerano, Kaasten, Kerns, and Hogaboam, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the application of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of correctly recording data before deallocating resources such as qubits. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Rigetti discloses a system that synchronizes qubit information through caches/qaches. Hogaboam teaches that qubits are deallocated according to scheduled quantum processing, and Kerns teaches that data is synchronized in response to upcoming deallocation of resources. The teachings of Kerns and Hogaboam are directly applicable to Rigetti in the same way, so that Rigetti would correctly synchronize qubit information in response to upcoming deallocation of qubits.
Rigetti does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first destination synchronization file comprises a second quantum file comprising a second qubit; and writing the quantum state of the first qubit to the first destination synchronization file, wherein writing the quantum state of the first qubit to the first destination synchronization file comprises setting a quantum state of the second qubit to the quantum state of the first qubit. However, as discussed above, Rigetti discloses synchronizing qubit states, which Pellerano discloses is performed by writing to registers, and Gesek teaches that the registers are quantum registers that store information in qubits (Abstract). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Rigetti, Pellerano, Kaasten, Kerns, Hogaboam, and Gesek, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of storing shared qubit information in quantum registers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Rigetti discloses synchronizing qubit state information. Pellerano teaches that the qubit state information should be stored in registers. Gesek teaches that the registers are quantum registers that store information in qubits. The teachings of Gesek are directly applicable to Rigetti and Pellerano, so that Rigetti and Pellerano would similarly store shared qubit states in a shared quantum register file comprising qubits, so that qubit state in a quantum system is stored in a quantum register.
If Rigetti is found to be unclear regarding determining an access-safe state, and obtaining write access, Diestelhorst discloses the same (¶¶66-67). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Rigetti, Pellerano, Kaasten, Kerns, Hogaboam, Gesek, and Diestelhorst, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of obtaining write access before changing stored data. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Rigetti discloses determining whether qubits are in use. Diestelhorst teaches obtaining write access for blocks after they are no longer in use, before storing new data to the block. The teachings of Diestelhorst are directly applicable to Rigetti in the same way, so that Rigetti would similarly obtain write access for qubits not in use before storing new information in the qubit.
Claim 10 recites a quantum computing device comprising a system memory and processor device communicatively coupled to the system memory, for performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar reasoning. Rigetti further discloses a quantum computing device comprising a system memory and processor device communicatively coupled to the system memory, for performing the claimed method (Fig. 1; ¶211).
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions for performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar reasoning. Rigetti further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processor devices to perform the claimed methods (¶211).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Rigetti discloses writing the quantum state of the first qubit to a second destination synchronization file comprising a classical file stored on a classical computing device that is communicatively coupled to the quantum computing device, wherein writing the quantum state of the first qubit to the second destination synchronization file comprises storing an indication of the quantum state of the first qubit in association with an identification of the first qubit in the classical file (¶¶122, 124).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been amended to recite additional limitations, which Applicant asserts are not taught by the prior art of record. These limitations are addressed above in the rejections using additional prior art.
Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Rigetti and Pellerano, because if Rigetti already discloses storing qubit states to caches/qaches, persons having ordinary skill in the art “would not be motivated to combine Rigetti with Pellerano so that Rigetti can store qubit states to register files”. Remarks 7. The examiner disagrees. First, Pellerano is included in case Rigetti “is found to be unclear regarding the synchronization file”; in other words, the examiner’s position is that Rigetti already discloses the synchronization file, but in the interest of compact prosecution, Pellerano is further included to address an interpretation of the prior art where Rigetti is found to fail to teach, with sufficient clarity, the synchronization file. Second, Rigetti’s disclosure of one way of synchronizing data does not foreclose the use of Pellerano’s register files as either an alternative or an additional way of synchronizing data. The rejection provided two KSR rationales: as a combination of known elements, persons having ordinary skill in the art would use Pellerano’s register files together with the Rigetti’s caches, and as a substitution of equivalent elements, persons having ordinary skill in the art would use the Pellerano’s register files as (or in place of) Rigetti’s caches. Multiple redundancy, backups, and maintaining synchronized information across both processing registers and caches are all notoriously well-known computing concepts, and persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any of them would apply when combining Rigetti and Pellerano.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
29 November 2025
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights