DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination filed on 25 November, 2025 and Applicant Amendment and Arguments filed on 27 October, 2025.
Claims 1-4 and 7-21 are pending in this application. Claims 5-6 were cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 October, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “first QIZ controller configured to” and “second QIZ controller configured to” in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding either structure, material, or acts to the function described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure can be found in specification paragraph [0034] discloses “The QIZ controller 44 may be an operating system component, such as a kernel module or the like, of an operating system 45. The QIZ controller 44 may run at a ring 0 level of the processor device 14 and thus execute in a kernel mode and a kernel space rather than as a user process in a user space”, specification paragraph [0117] discloses “All or a portion of the examples may be implemented as a computer program product 178 stored on a transitory or non-transitory computer- usable or computer-readable storage medium, such as the storage device 48, which includes complex programming instructions, such as complex computer- readable program code, to cause the processor device 14 to carry out the steps described herein. Thus, the computer-readable program code can comprise software instructions for implementing the functionality of the examples described herein when executed on the processor device 14.” And Fig. 1A, 44 quantum isolation zone controller within the memory 16.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category: Yes, the claim 1 is a method that recites a series of steps and therefore falls in the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes, the claim recites: “determining, based on the QIZ metadata for the first QIZ of the first quantum computing system, that a resource associated with the first QIZ should be deallocated; and causing a deallocation of the resource associated with the first QIZ.”. As drafted, the claim as a whole recites a method including steps that could be performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computing components. The human mind can easily judging/evaluating/determining whether to deallocation of the resources based on the metadata received (i.e., resource status), and scheduling/deallocating the resources based on the determination. Therefore, but for the recitation of generic computing components, these steps may be a Mental Processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Therefore, yes, the claims do recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Integrated into a practical Application: No, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional limitations that “obtaining, a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system”, “obtaining, QIZ metadata for each of the plurality of different QIZs” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). In addition, “a computing device comprising a processor device” and “quantum isolation zones (QIZs) implemented on the first quantum computing system, each respective QIZ having a plurality of qubits associated therewith that is inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ” and “wherein requests by quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed based on the QIZ metadata to the respective QIZ” are directed to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))). Further, “wherein causing the deallocation of the resource associated with the first QIZ comprises causing the resource associated with the first QIZ to terminate” which is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept: No. The additional elements “a computing device comprising a processor device” and “quantum isolation zones (QIZs) implemented on a first quantum computing system, each respective QIZ having a plurality of qubits associated therewith that is inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ” and “wherein requests by quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed based on the QIZ metadata to the respective QIZ” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))). In addition, the limitation, “wherein causing the deallocation of the resource associated with the first QIZ comprises causing the resource associated with the first QIZ to terminate” which is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, “obtaining, a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system” and “obtaining, QIZ metadata for each of the plurality of different QIZs” which are insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). These additional elements and combination of the elements does not amount to significant more than the exception itself or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “obtaining” steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A as insignificant pre-solution data gathering and which is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The “obtaining” step is for “communication”, “transmitting the data” in order to gathering the information and these can be reached on one of court case (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) see MPEP § 2106.05(d) II). Accordingly, a conclusion that the obtaining steps are well understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 11 and 16 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. In addition, independent claim 11 further recites “A computing system comprising: a memory; and a processor device coupled to the memory” and independent claim 16 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions to cause a processor device on a quantum computing system”. These additional elements are directed to generic computing components/Functions (MPEP § 2106.05(b) merely applying the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, independent claim 16 further recites “wherein the resource comprises a first local service that is associated with the first QIZ, and wherein the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first local service that identifies a time at which the first local service was last utilized by the quantum process associated with the first QIZ” as being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 2, the claim elaborates that wherein the QIZ metadata identifies a time of last access for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first QIZ (“metadata identifies a time of last access” as being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
With respect to the dependent claim 3, the claim elaborates that wherein the resource comprises a qubit associated with the first QIZ, and wherein determining, based on the QIZ metadata for the first QIZ, that the resource associated with the first QIZ should be deallocated comprises determining, based on the QIZ metadata for the first QIZ, that the qubit has not been accessed for a period of time greater than a determined qubit access time interval (“resource comprises a qubit” as being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, “determining, based on the QIZ metadata for the first QIZ, that the qubit has not been accessed for a period of time greater than a determined qubit access time interval” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind).
With respect to the dependent claim 4, the claim elaborates that wherein causing the deallocation of the resource further comprises modifying the QIZ metadata to disassociate the qubit from the first QIZ and make the qubit available for subsequent allocation to any QIZ of the plurality of QIZs (“modifying the QIZ metadata to disassociate the qubit… and make the qubit available” was considered to be extra-solution activity as insignificant extra-solution activity and merely data storing (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), i.e., updating/storing/modifying the metadata) which are additionally well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). and this can be reached on one of court case (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) iv.).
With respect to the dependent claim 7, the claim elaborates that obtaining the QIZ metadata for each of the plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system, obtaining second QIZ metadata for each of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on a second quantum computing system, and further comprising: determining, based on the second QIZ metadata for a second QIZ of the second quantum computing system, that a resource associated with the second QIZ of the second quantum computing system should be deallocated; and causing a deallocation of the resource associated with the second QIZ of the second quantum computing system (“obtaining” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g). In addition, “determining, based on the second QIZ metadata…that a resource associated with the second QIZ of the second quantum computing system should be deallocated; and causing a deallocation” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind (i.e., determination and scheduling)).
With respect to the dependent claim 8, the claim elaborates that determining that an interaction is to be facilitated between the first QIZ on the first quantum computing system and a second QIZ implemented on a second quantum computing system; and sending, to a first QIZ controller executing on the first quantum computing system, address information of a second QIZ controller executing on the second quantum computing system, the first QIZ controller configured to implement the plurality of QIZs on the first quantum computing system and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a plurality of QIZs on the second quantum computing system (“determining that an interaction is to be facilitated” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. In addition, “sending, to a first QIZ controller…address information of a second QIZ controller” was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) which is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The “sending” step is for the purpose of “communication” and “transmitting the data” and these can be reached on one of court case (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) see MPEP § 2106.05(d) II). Further, “the first QIZ controller configured to implement the plurality of QIZs on the first quantum computing system and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a plurality of QIZs on the second quantum computing system” as being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 9, the claim elaborates that wherein the interaction comprises an entanglement of a first qubit in the first QIZ and a second qubit in the second QIZ (“an entanglement of a first qubit in the first QIZ and a second qubit in the second QIZ” as being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 10, the claim elaborates that wherein the interaction comprises an establishment of a network service between one or more quantum processes associated with the first QIZ on the first quantum computing system and one or more quantum processes associated with the second QIZ on the second quantum computing system (“wherein the interaction comprises an establishment of a network service between one or more quantum processes associated with the first QIZ…and one or more quantum processes associated with the second QIZ” as being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 12-13, 15 and 17-18 and 20 recite the same features as applied to claims 2-3, 7 and 2-3 and 7 respectively above, therefore they are also rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to the dependent claim 14, the claim elaborates that wherein the resource comprises a first local service that is associated with the first QIZ, and wherein the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first local service that identifies a time at which the first local service was last utilized by a process associated with the first QIZ (these limitations are being treated as directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 19 recite the same features as applied to claim 14 above, therefore it is also rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to the dependent claim 21, the claim elaborates that receiving a request to initiate a local service instance of a global service instance executing on the first quantum computing system; modifying the QIZ metadata to indicate that the local service instance is associated with the first QIZ; and based on the QIZ metadata, routing a subsequent request for a service implemented by the global service instance to the local service instance (“receiving” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). In addition, “modifying the QIZ metadata” was considered to be extra-solution activity as insignificant extra-solution activity and merely data storing (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), i.e., updating/storing/modifying the metadata) which are additionally well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). and this can be reached on one of court case (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) iv.). Further, “based on the QIZ metadata, routing a subsequent request…” as being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind (i.e., assigning/routing)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh et al. (US Pub. 2023/0112525 A1) in view of Bhaskar et al. (US Pub. 2023/0188548 A1), and further in view of Fang et al. (US Pub. 2024/0134711 A1), Griffin et al. (US Pub. 2020/0201655 A1) and HAN et al. (US Pub. 2019/0394669 A1).
Naveh, Fang, Griffin and HAN were cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 1, Naveh teaches the invention substantially as claimed including A method comprising:
obtaining, by the computing device [comprising a processor device], quantum functional block metadata for each of the plurality of different quantum functional blocks implemented on the first quantum computing system, each respective quantum functional block having a plurality of qubits associated therewith (Naveh, Fig. 12, 1200 computing device, 1202 processor; Fig. 8C, 801, 802b, 803, 804c, 805, 806 (as quantum functional blocks), qubits, cycles; also see Fig. 11B, F1, F2, F3 functional blocks with 6 qubits inputs; [0017] lines 16-20, obtaining metadata from a functional-level processing component, wherein the metadata comprise an artifact associated with the gate-level implementation of the functional block; and compiling the gate-level representation of the quantum circuit (as a first quantum computing system)); [0150] lines 5-15, the metadata may define an area of the quantum program that corresponds to a functional block in the functional-level representation of the quantum program. For example, the metadata may indicate a range of cycles and a set of qubits that are utilized during the range of the cycles to implement the functional block. It is noted that the set of qubits may be referred to as a “range” of qubits…the “range” may include the following set of ten qubits: q.sub.1, q.sub.3, q.sub.10, . . . , q.sub.17 (as the metadata for each functional blocks are obtained, see Fig. 8C, each function blocks has its associated qubits with defined cycles/times); [0040] lines 23-30, the functional-level processing component may perform an inline process by converting each block to a respective gate-level implementation…potentially utilize a different amount and types of resources, such as different depth (e.g., different number of cycles), different number of qubits (as each respective functional block having a plurality of qubits associated therewith; see Fig. 11B, each F1, F2 and F3 has different qubits associated with them));
determining, based on the quantum functional block metadata for the first quantum functional block of the first quantum computing system, that a resource associated with the first quantum functional block should be deallocated and causing a deallocation of the resource associated with the first quantum functional block, wherein causing the deallocation of the resource associated with the first quantum functional block comprises causing the resource associated with the first quantum functional block to deallocated. (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801 (as first quantum functional block); also see another example Fig.11B, 1110 F1 (as first quantum functional block); [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 8C and Fig. 11B; [Examiner noted: the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block; also see Fig. 11 B)]).
Naveh fails to specifically teach obtaining, by a computing device, a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system.
However, Bhaskar teaches obtaining, by a computing device, a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system (Bhaskar, Fig. 1 (as including first quantum computing system), 138 and 144 distributed entanglement (as plurality of different QIZ); Fig. 2A, 210 to 214 quantum hardware provider (as providing qubits), 220, 216, 234, 236, 238 Entangled particle (as plurality of qubits from available qubits); Fig. 13 interface; [0004] Quantum computing devices are based on such quantum bits (qubits), which may experience the phenomena of “superposition” and “entanglement.”; [0016] a quantum entanglement distribution service distributing entanglement between a customer endpoint of a first customer and an endpoint of another customer at a remote location from the first customer, wherein the distributed entanglement is provided by third party network infrastructure and service provider network infrastructure, and wherein the distributed entanglement provides secure communications between the first customer and the other customer that does not rely on the third party network infrastructure to provide security or privacy for the secure communication (as QIZ); [0048] a quantum entanglement distribution service, such as quantum entanglement distribution service 112, includes a user interface 114 (as QIZ UI), a routing information store 116, and a routing selection module 118. In some embodiments, customers associated with any of customer endpoints 126, 128, 130, etc. may submit a request 146 for distribution of quantum entanglement, wherein the request 146 is sent via classical network 132 (e.g., such as an internet network or direct connect network connection implemented using classical computing hardware). The request may be received at user interface 114 of quantum entanglement distribution service 112, which in some embodiments may be implemented as an application programmatic interface (API), console interface, or interface of a quantum service design kit (e.g., quantum SDK), for example as shown in more detail in FIG. 13; [0051] a customer associated with customer endpoint 126 may submit a request 146 to user interface 114, wherein the request is for quantum entanglement to be distributed between the customer endpoint 126 and classical computing resources of classical computing services 110 or quantum computing resources of quantum computing services 108 allocated to the customer in service provider network 106 (as allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ); also see [0091] entanglement generated by the two-qubit operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh with Bhaskar because Bhaskar’s teaching of providing a user interface that allowing the user to allocate the qubits to distributing the entanglement into the quantum computing system would have provided Naveh’s system with the advantage and capability to enable the user to easily managing and distributing the entanglement in order to provide secure quantum communications which improving the system performance and efficiency (see Bhaskar, [0095] “using secure quantum communications implemented using distributed entanglement”).
Naveh and Bhaskar fail to explicitly teach quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ), and each respective QIZ having a plurality of qubits associated therewith that is inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ, wherein requests by quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed based on the QIZ metadata to the respective QIZ.
However, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0092] lines 1-4, “mapping a quantum computing task to be processed with the qubit topological structure”, that is, forming a mapping between the logical qubit of the quantum computing task and the physical qubit of the quantum chip (as QIZ metadata (i.e., mapping is formed)); also see Fig. 10, P1 allocation (quantum computing task P1) is associated with a QIZ (partition left) and P2 allocation (quantum computing task P2) is associated with a QIZ (partition right); [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes (as plurality of QIZs));
each respective QIZ having a plurality of qubits associated therewith that is inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ (Fang, [0047] lines 1-11, since the timing for all qubits in the quantum circuit corresponding to the integral quantum computing task to execute quantum logic gates is clear and unambiguous, the qubits that execute the dual-bit quantum logic gate with the same timing are spatially isolated when partitioning the qubit topological structure corresponding to the integral quantum computing task, and thus crosstalk is directly and effectively avoided (as inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ) when executing the integral quantum computing task after completing the mapping of the integral quantum computing task to the qubit topological structure; also see [0155] After combining by using the quantum computing task combining module 430 in the present application, the timings of Individual quantum computing tasks in the integral quantum computing task are known, and the timings can be utilized in the mapping process to effectively avoid the crosstalk);
wherein quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed based on the QIZ metadata to the respective QIZ (Fang, Fig. 12, S45; [0079] lines 6-8, how to schedule quantum computing tasks to ensure full utilization of the quantum chip cluster for executing tasks; [0161] lines 1-10, After finding the qubit topological structure, the quantum computing task scheduling and mapping modules schedules a quantum computing task to be executed based on the updated quantum computing task queue, and maps the quantum computing task to be executed to the qubit topological structure in order of priority from high to low. At this point, the quantum computer operating system completes the process of the quantum computing task, and then executes the corresponding quantum computing task in the quantum chip (as quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed/assigned (i.e., to be executed) based on the QIZ metadata (i.e., mapping) to the respective QIZ, so each partition is executing each quantum computing task respectively)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh and Bhaskar with Fang because Fang’s teaching of providing an quantum isolation mapping that avoiding the crosstalk between the quantum computing tasks would have provided Naveh and Bhaskar’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to improving the utilization of qubits in the quantum chip (see Fang, [0044] “improving the utilization of qubits in the quantum chip”).
Naveh, Bhaskar and Fang fail to specifically teach when routing quantum processes to the respective QIZ, it is requests by quantum processes are routed based on the QIZ metadata.
However, Griffin teaches requests by quantum processes are routed based on the QIZ metadata (Griffin, Fig. 2, 12-1 to 12-N quantum server A to N, 36 QS metadata, 20 router table; [0032] lines 1-20, The quantum computing system 10 includes a quantum computer task manager 34 that maintains quantum system metadata 36 regarding a current state of the qubits 30, and that can access other information, such as information contained in the router table 20 and the quantum computing system information 32, to provide a consolidated source of information regarding the quantum computing system 10. The quantum system metadata 36 may include, by way of non-limiting example, information that identifies the particular qubits 30 used by each quantum service 12, and the superposition and entanglement statuses of the qubits 30. The quantum computer task manager 34 can query the quantum channel router 16 for the router table 20 periodically, or in response to a request from another task for information about the quantum computing system 10. In some implementations, the quantum computer task manager 34 may actually maintain the information in the router table 20, and the quantum channel router 16 may query the quantum computer task manager 34 as needed to route messages to and from the quantum services 12; [0027] lines 1-5, Upon receipt of a message, the quantum channel router 16 accesses the router table 20 to determine the quantum channel 14 associated with the quantum service 12 identified by the destination quantum service identifier in the message; [0034] lines 1-3, One such task may be a scheduler service 42 that is responsible for executing tasks, such as the quantum services 12; (please note: QIZ was taught by Fang)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar and Fang with Griffin because Griffin’s teaching of routing the messages/request from other task/quantum process to other place based on the quantum metadata would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar and Fang’s system with the advantage and capability to ensuring the correct routing for the quantum task message/requests in order to improving the system performance and efficiency.
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin fail to specifically teach when causing the resource deallocated, it is causing the resource to terminate.
However, HAN teaches when causing the resource deallocated, it is causing the resource to terminate (HAN, [0131] lines 1-3, After receiving the end marker packet, the source base station may release or terminate the resource allocated to the QoS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin with HAN because HAN’s teaching of terminating of the resources would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin’s system with the advantage and capability to improving the resource utilization which providing enhanced system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 7, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Naveh further teaches obtaining the quantum functional block metadata for each of the plurality of different quantum functional blocks implemented on the first quantum computing system, and obtaining second quantum functional block metadata for each of a plurality of different quantum functional blocks implemented on a second quantum computing system (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801, 802b, 803, 804c, 805, 806 (as quantum functional blocks), qubits, cycles; also see Fig. 11B, F1, F2, F3 functional blocks with 6 qubits inputs within a quantum circuit (as one of quantum computing system); [0017] lines 16-20, obtaining metadata from a functional-level processing component, wherein the metadata comprise an artifact associated with the gate-level implementation of the functional block; and compiling the gate-level representation of the quantum circuit (as a first quantum computing system); [0041] lines 1-3, the quantum circuit may be represented as a set of functional blocks ordered with a DAG mapping; [0044] the function library may be used for many different quantum circuits based on the initial pre-processing; [0193] lines 1-3, FIGS. 8A-8D showing illustrations of quantum circuits (as including first and second quantum computing systems); also see [0003] lines 4-6, compile gate-level representations of quantum circuits to thereby synthesize respective executable circuits) and further comprising:
determining, based on the second quantum functional block metadata for a second quantum functional block of the second quantum computing system, that a resource associated with the second quantum functional block of the second quantum computing system should be deallocated; and causing a deallocation of the resource associated with the second quantum functional block of the second quantum computing system (Naveh, [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 10B and Fig. 11B; (as the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block of another (second) quantum circuit (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block); see Fig. 10B and 11B]).
In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
As per claim 11, it is a computing system claim of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. In addition, Naveh further teaches A computing system comprising: a memory; and a processor device coupled to the memory (Naveh, Fig. 12, 1200, 1207 memory unit, 1202 processor).
As per claim 15, it is a computing system claim of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN, as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of MUTHA et al. (US Pub. 2023/0109690 A1).
MUTHA was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 2, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Naveh further teaches wherein the quantum functional block metadata identifies a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block (Naveh, [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; [0067] lines 9-10, a time or cycle number of the release; [0202] lines 23-25, implementation may utilize different sets of qubits in different timeframes; (as a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block; see Fig 8C, 801, qubits 1-3 start at 0 cycle and end at cycle 2)). In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
Although, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN teach metadata identifies a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN fail to specifically teach that metadata identifies a time of last access.
However, MUTHA teaches metadata identifies a time of last access (MUTHA, [0075] lines 9-14, Metadata can include, without limitation, one or more of the following…a data object size (e.g., a number of bytes of data), information about the content (e.g., an indication as to the existence of a particular search term)…last accessed time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN with MUTHA because MUTHA’s teaching of metadata that including the last access time for accessing the content would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily determining the resource utilization status which enable the system to deallocation the resources based on the last access time.
As per claim 3, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and MUTHA teach the invention according to claim 2 above. Naveh further teaches wherein the resource comprises a qubit associated with the first quantum functional block, and wherein determining, based on the quantum functional block metadata for the first quantum functional block, that the resource associated with the first quantum functional block should be deallocated comprises determining, based on the quantum functional block metadata for the first quantum functional block (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801 (as first quantum functional block); also see another example Fig.11B, 1110 F1 (as first quantum functional block); [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 8C and Fig. 11B; [Examiner noted: the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block; also see Fig. 11 B)]).
In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
Further, MUTHA teaches when determining, that the resource should be deallocated, is that the qubit [resource] has not been accessed for a period of time greater than a determined qubit [resource] access time interval (MUTHA, [0279] lines 1-18, Where the resource monitor 408 has determined that a provisioned pod is idle or underutilized, the resource monitor 408 may then start a separate timer that measures the amount of time that the provisioned pod has been idle and/or underutilized. This measurement may inform the resource monitor 408 whether the idle or underutilized provisioned pod is, in fact, idle and can be terminated or deconstructed. Accordingly, the resource monitor 408 may compare this separate timer with the idle timing threshold to determine whether the provisioned pod can be terminated or deconstructed. The idle timing threshold may be measured in minutes (e.g., five minutes), hours (e.g., two hours), days (e.g., two days), or any other increment or measurement of time. Where the separate timer meets or exceeds the idle timing threshold (as determined qubit [resource] access time interval), the resource monitor 408 may then deconstruct or terminate the provisioned pod, which may then free up computing resources within the cluster of computing nodes 402; [0295] lines 10-13, Should the storage manager 140 have additional tasks and/or operations to assign, the storage manager 140 may assign those tasks and/or operations to the idle computing pods 424B,426B (as the resource during the idle time, it still can be accessed during that time, but will be freed/deallocated until the idle time pass the idle threshold (as determined [resource] access time interval); please note: qubit was taught by Naveh and Zhao).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN with MUTHA because MUTHA’s teaching of freeing the resources if the resource has not been accessed (i.e., idle) greater than a determined access time interval would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to freeing the idle resources for other tasks which improving the resource utilization and system efficiency (see MUTHA, [0012] and [0135] “The distributed architecture also provides scalability and efficient component utilization”).
As per claims 12-13, they are computing system claims of claims 2-3 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3 respectively above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and MUTHA, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of NISHIMAKI (US Pub. 2010/0325638 A1).
NISHIMAKI was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 4, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and MUTHA teach the invention according to claim 3 above. Naveh further teaches wherein causing the deallocation of the resource further comprises to disassociate the qubit from the first quantum functional block and make the qubit available for subsequent allocation to any quantum functional block of the plurality of quantum functional blocks (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801 (as first quantum functional block), 803 is utilizing qubit 1 and 2 which from 801; also see another example Fig.11B, 1110 F1 (as first quantum functional block); [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 8C and Fig. 11B; [Examiner noted: the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block; also see Fig. 11 B)]).
In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and MUTHA fail to specifically teach when deallocation of the resource, it modifying the QIZ [resource] metadata to disassociate the qubit [resource] and make the qubit [resource] available for subsequent allocation.
However, NISHIMAKI teaches when deallocation of the resource, it modifying the QIZ [resource] metadata to disassociate the qubit [resource] and make the qubit [resource] available for subsequent allocation (NISHIMAKI, Fig. 3, 633 (as whole as metadata, including 633a, 633b, 633c); [0055] Table 2: resource name, occupancy status; [0072] Table 4: resource name: software codec 81-1, occupancy status, application 51-3; [0100] 1-10, updates the resource availability management table. The resource manager 63 updates the resource availability management table 633b when the occupied resource is freed to change the occupancy status of the thus freed resource from occupied to unused. For example, when the software codec 81-1 is freed, the occupancy status of the software codec 81-1 in the resource availability management table 633b shown in Table 4 is updated into the resource availability management table shown in Table 2 (see difference between Table 4 and table 2, that the resource software codec 81-1 has been freed, and the occupancy status also removed to be available (as modifying the QIZ [resource] metadata to disassociate the qubit [resource] and make the qubit [resource] available for subsequent allocation)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and MUTHA with NISHIMAKI because NISHIMAKI’s teaching of updating the resource availability management table (as metadata) to indicate that resource is disassociated and available would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and MUTHA’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to dynamically managing and tracking the different resources in real time which improving the resource utilization and system performance (see NISHIMAKI, [0101] “keep the execution information management tables and the resource availability management table up to date”).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh, Bhaskar Fang, Griffin and HAN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rahman (US Pub. 2021/0175976 A1), Utas (US Patent. 6,515,983 B1) and Willenborg et al. (US Pub. 2022/0398099 A1).
Rahman, Utas and Willenborg were cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 8, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Naveh, Fang, Griffin and HAN fail to specifically teach determining that an interaction is to be facilitated between the first QIZ on the first quantum computing system and a second QIZ implemented on a second quantum computing system; and sending, to a first QIZ controller executing on the first quantum computing system, address information of a second QIZ controller executing on the second quantum computing system, the first QIZ controller configured to implement the plurality of QIZs on the first quantum computing system and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a plurality of QIZs on the second quantum computing system.
However, Rahman teaches determining that an interaction is to be facilitated between the first QIZ on the first quantum computing system and a second QIZ implemented on a second quantum computing system (Rahman, Fig. 2B, processing node 211a, 212a QEN (as first QIZ on the first quantum computing system), 211b, QEN 212b (as second QIZ implemented on a second quantum computing system); [0017], lines 5-16, The operations include receiving a request for communications between a first communication node and a second communication node, determining to provide a quantum channel for the communications, and identifying a first network routing path of a group of network routing paths according to the quantum channel. Quantum entanglement is established between the first communication node and the second communication node based on transportation of a first quantum entangled photon of a first pair of quantum entangled photons via the first network routing path);
a first QIZ controller executing on the first quantum computing system, a second QIZ controller executing on the second quantum computing system (Rahman, Fig. 2B, 213a quantum agent (as first QIZ controller on the first quantum computing system 211a), Quantum agent 213b (as second QIZ controller executing on the second quantum computing system 211b);
the first QIZ controller configured to implement the QIZ on the first quantum computing system and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a QIZ on the second quantum computing system (Fig. 2F, QEN 272a to f, QA 273a to f; [0078] lines 1-8, Each of the QENs 272a, 272b, 272c, 272d, 272e, 272f, generally 272, is associated with a respective quantum agent (QA) 273a, 273b, 273c, 273d, 273e, 273f, generally 273. The QAs 273 are adapted to implement functionality that supports distribution and/or applications involving quantum entanglement, such as entanglement distribution, qubit measurements, qubit storage, quantum teleportation, quantum encryption, quantum computing, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN with Rahman because Rahman’s teaching of determining the that the communication/interaction is to be facilitated between the QENs on different quantum computing system for entanglement would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the different quantum system to sharing entanglement through a quantum channel which enables physical implementations of quantum cryptography, quantum secret sharing and distributed quantum computation in in order to improving the system efficiency (see Rahman, [0002] “Sharing entanglement over endpoint nodes through a quantum channel enables physical implementations of quantum cryptography, quantum secret sharing and distributed quantum computation”).
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and Rahman fail to specifically teach sending, to a first QIZ controller, address information of a second QIZ controller [for interaction to be facilitated].
However, Utas teaches sending, to a first QIZ controller, address information of a second QIZ controller [for interaction to be facilitated] (Utas, Col 8, lines 40-65, a connection handler in communication with the first connection agent and in communication with the second connection agent, the connection handler containing instructions for: determining if the first connection agent is willing to transmit to the second connection agent, if yes, then transmitting a first endpoint address to the second connection agent…determining if the second connection agent is willing to transmit to the first connection agent, and if yes, then transmitting a second endpoint address to the first connection agent (as sending, to a first QIZ controller, address information of a second QIZ controller; please note: QIZ controller was taught by Rahman), determining if the first connection agent is willing to listen to the second connection agent and, if yes, then accepting the second endpoint address to establish a second one-way connection between the first and second terminals in which the second terminal can talk to the first terminal and the first terminal can listen to the second terminal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and Rahman with Utas because Utas’s teaching of sending the address information of second connection agent for establishing the communication would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN and Rahman’s system with the advantage and capability allow the system to ensuring the correct communication between different quantum computing systems which improving the system efficiency and performance.
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN, Rahman and Utas fail to specifically teach the first QIZ controller configured to implement the plurality of QIZs on the first quantum computing system and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a plurality of QIZs on the second quantum computing system.
However, Willenborg teaches the first QIZ controller configured to implement the plurality of QIZs on the first quantum computing system and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a plurality of QIZs on the second quantum computing system (Willenborg, Fig. 2, 210(1) to 210 (n) controller device (as QIZ controllers, including first and second QIZ controllers), Qubit device 220(1) to 220(N) (as QIZs); [0039] lines 1-13, the multiple qubit devices 160 can include, for example, a first qubit device 220(1), a second qubit device 220(2), and other qubit devices up to an N-th qubit device 220(N). In the example arrangement 200, each control device 210(K) is functionally coupled to a qubit device 220(K) by a bidirectional link 215(K) (a link that can supply information upstream and downstream). It is noted that embodiments of this disclosure are not limited to such a one-to-one coupling and/or bidirectional links 215(1) to 215(N). In some embodiments, two or more qubit devices of the qubit devices 160 can be functionally coupled to a single controller device of the multiple controller devices 140 (as implement the plurality of QIZs on the first quantum computing system (i.e., first controller with different qubit devices as whole as first quantum computing system) and the second QIZ controller configured to implement a plurality of QIZs on the second quantum computing system (i.e., second controller with different qubit devices as whole as second quantum computing system)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN, Rahman and Utas with Willenborg because Willenborg’s teaching of using the respective controller to implement/controlling plurality of quantum devices would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN, Rahman and Utas’s system with the advantage and capability allow the system to easily manage and controlling the different quantum processing regions (i.e., QIZs) which improving the system processing speed and efficiency (see Willenborg [0006] “execution of the quantum program can be controlled centrally and efficiently in real-time, which can permit readily increasing the number of qubit devices that form the quantum processor”).
As per claim 9, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN, Rahman, Utas and Willenborg teach the invention according to claim 8 above. Rahman further teaches wherein the interaction comprises an entanglement of a first qubit in the first QIZ and a second qubit in the second QIZ (Rahman, [0031] lines 1-4, A qubit, for example, represents a unit of quantum information that may include additional dimensions associated to quantum properties of a physical object, such as a photon and/or an atom; [0033] lines 1-9, By using quantum superposition, or quantum entanglement, and transmitting information in quantum states, a communication system is well suited for detecting eavesdropping. Quantum entanglement is the shared state of two separate particles, such that what happens to one happens to other. More generally, the entanglement process includes creation of a pair of qubits; [0038] lines 12-15, information can be shared or otherwise exchanged between the two processing nodes 201a, 201b, generally 201, through a process that relies at least in part upon a so-called entanglement; (as interaction comprises an entanglement of a first qubit in the first QIZ (i.e., QEN 202A Fig. 2A) and a second qubit in the second QIZ (QEN 202b, Fig. 2A)).
As per claim 10, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, HAN, Rahman, Utas and Willenborg teach the invention according to claim 8 above. Rahman further teaches wherein the interaction comprises an establishment of a network service between one or more quantum processes associated with the first QIZ on the first quantum computing system and one or more quantum processes associated with the second QIZ on the second quantum computing system (Rahman, Fig. 2B, processing node 211a, 212a QEN (as first QIZ on the first quantum computing system), 211b, QEN 212b (as second QIZ implemented on a second quantum computing system); [0017], lines 5-16, The operations include receiving a request for communications between a first communication node and a second communication node, determining to provide a quantum channel for the communications, and identifying a first network routing path of a group of network routing paths according to the quantum channel. Quantum entanglement is established between the first communication node and the second communication node based on transportation of a first quantum entangled photon of a first pair of quantum entangled photons via the first network routing path; [0018] lines 6-9, determining, by the processing system, that the requested communications are to be established via quantum teleportation between the first communication node and the second communication node; see Fig. 2C 2D, communication link established between 231a and 231b; also see [0002] lines 6-9, Sharing entanglement over endpoint nodes through a quantum channel enables physical implementations of quantum cryptography, quantum secret sharing and distributed quantum computation (as establish network service between quantum process at different quantum computing systems)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Van Den Heuvel (US Pub. 2010/0257611 A1; hereafter Heuvel).
Heuvel was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 14, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN teach the invention according to claim 11 above. Naveh further teaches wherein the resource comprises a qubit that is associated with the first quantum functional block, and wherein the quantum functional block metadata identifies time of access of the qubit that identifies a time at which the qubit was utilized by a process associated with the first quantum functional block (Naveh, [0150] lines 8-10, the metadata may indicate a range of cycles and a set of qubits that are utilized during the range of the cycles to implement the functional block; [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations... Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; [0041] lines 4-5, each functional block may correspond to a task (as process associated with first functional block); [0202] lines 23-25, implementation may utilize different sets of qubits in different timeframes; (as a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block; see Fig 8C, 801, qubits 1-3 start at 0 cycle and end at cycle 2)). In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes), wherein the resource comprises a first local service that is associated with the first QIZ, and the qubit [resource] and content are first local service (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation with group of qubits (as first local service that is associated with first QIZ), P2 allocation; [0119] lines 13-17, it is very important to find an optimized mapping region (i.e., the qubit topology) for the quantum computing task (as local service that is associated with the QIZ) in a quantum chip meeting a requirement from a quantum chip cluster; [0119] lines 24-25, avoidance of crosstalk).
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN fail to specifically teach the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first local service that identifies a time at which the first local service was last utilized by a process.
However, Heuvel teaches the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first content that identifies a time at which the first content was last utilized by a process (Heuvel, [0009] lines 1-2, a usage indicator for providing a measure of usage associated with the content; [0060] lines 1-8, a usage indicator records the following measures of usage: the total consumed amount of content for a given content ID, the amount of consumed content since the last report to the service provider, the total playback time, the playback time since the last report to the service provider, the time stamp of the last report to the service provider, and the number of times the content has been accessed; [0054] lines 1-5, the measure of usage includes a time stamp of the last communication of the measure of usage. The license may in this situation specify an allowed report interval. For example, each time the measure of usage has been communicated to the service provider, the usage indicator records a timestamp (as last time of accessing the content)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN with Heuvel because Heuvel’s teaching of usage indicator (as metadata) that recording the last time of the content has been accessed would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily tracking the accessing time which improving the resource utilization and system performance.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh et al. (US Pub. 2023/0112525 A1) in view of Bhaskar et al. (US Pub. 2023/0188548 A1), and further in view of Fang et al. (US Pub. 2024/0134711 A1), Griffin et al. (US Pub. 2020/0201655 A1), Van Den Heuvel (US Pub. 2010/0257611 A1; hereafter Heuvel) and Tuunanen (US Patent. 6,243,455 B1).
As per claim 16, Naveh teaches the invention substantially as claimed including A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions to cause a processor device on a quantum computing system to (Naveh, claim 20, A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium retaining program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps at a gate-level processing component):
obtaining, quantum functional block metadata for each of the plurality of different quantum functional blocks implemented on the first quantum computing system, each respective quantum functional block having a plurality of qubits associated therewith (Naveh, Fig. 12, 1200 computing device, 1202 processor; Fig. 8C, 801, 802b, 803, 804c, 805, 806 (as quantum functional blocks), qubits, cycles; also see Fig. 11B, F1, F2, F3 functional blocks with 6 qubits inputs; [0017] lines 16-20, obtaining metadata from a functional-level processing component, wherein the metadata comprise an artifact associated with the gate-level implementation of the functional block; and compiling the gate-level representation of the quantum circuit (as a first quantum computing system)); [0150] lines 5-15, the metadata may define an area of the quantum program that corresponds to a functional block in the functional-level representation of the quantum program. For example, the metadata may indicate a range of cycles and a set of qubits that are utilized during the range of the cycles to implement the functional block. It is noted that the set of qubits may be referred to as a “range” of qubits…the “range” may include the following set of ten qubits: q.sub.1, q.sub.3, q.sub.10, . . . , q.sub.17 (as the metadata for each functional blocks are obtained, see Fig. 8C, each function blocks has its associated qubits with defined cycles/times); [0040] lines 23-30, the functional-level processing component may perform an inline process by converting each block to a respective gate-level implementation…potentially utilize a different amount and types of resources, such as different depth (e.g., different number of cycles), different number of qubits (as each respective functional block having a plurality of qubits associated therewith; see Fig. 11B, each F1, F2 and F3 has different qubits associated with them));
determining, based on the quantum functional block metadata for the first quantum functional block of the first quantum computing system, that a resource associated with the first quantum functional block should be deallocated and causing a deallocation of the resource associated with the first quantum functional block, wherein causing the deallocation of the resource associated with the first quantum functional block comprises causing to deallocated. (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801 (as first quantum functional block); also see another example Fig.11B, 1110 F1 (as first quantum functional block); [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 8C and Fig. 11B; [Examiner noted: the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block; also see Fig. 11 B)]).
wherein the resource comprises a qubit that is associated with the first quantum functional block, and wherein the quantum functional block metadata identifies time of access of the qubit that identifies a time at which the qubit was utilized by a process associated with the first quantum functional block (Naveh, [0150] lines 8-10, the metadata may indicate a range of cycles and a set of qubits that are utilized during the range of the cycles to implement the functional block; [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations... Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; [0041] lines 4-5, each functional block may correspond to a task (as process associated with first functional block); [0202] lines 23-25, implementation may utilize different sets of qubits in different timeframes; (as a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block; see Fig 8C, 801, qubits 1-3 start at 0 cycle and end at cycle 2)).
Naveh fails to specifically teach obtain a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system.
However, Bhaskar teaches obtain a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ of a plurality of different QIZs implemented on the first quantum computing system (Bhaskar, Fig. 1 (as including first quantum computing system), 138 and 144 distributed entanglement (as plurality of different QIZ); Fig. 2A, 210 to 214 quantum hardware provider (as providing qubits), 220, 216, 234, 236, 238 Entangled particle (as plurality of qubits from available qubits); Fig. 13 interface; [0004] Quantum computing devices are based on such quantum bits (qubits), which may experience the phenomena of “superposition” and “entanglement.”; [0016] a quantum entanglement distribution service distributing entanglement between a customer endpoint of a first customer and an endpoint of another customer at a remote location from the first customer, wherein the distributed entanglement is provided by third party network infrastructure and service provider network infrastructure, and wherein the distributed entanglement provides secure communications between the first customer and the other customer that does not rely on the third party network infrastructure to provide security or privacy for the secure communication (as QIZ); [0048] a quantum entanglement distribution service, such as quantum entanglement distribution service 112, includes a user interface 114 (as QIZ UI), a routing information store 116, and a routing selection module 118. In some embodiments, customers associated with any of customer endpoints 126, 128, 130, etc. may submit a request 146 for distribution of quantum entanglement, wherein the request 146 is sent via classical network 132 (e.g., such as an internet network or direct connect network connection implemented using classical computing hardware). The request may be received at user interface 114 of quantum entanglement distribution service 112, which in some embodiments may be implemented as an application programmatic interface (API), console interface, or interface of a quantum service design kit (e.g., quantum SDK), for example as shown in more detail in FIG. 13; [0051] a customer associated with customer endpoint 126 may submit a request 146 to user interface 114, wherein the request is for quantum entanglement to be distributed between the customer endpoint 126 and classical computing resources of classical computing services 110 or quantum computing resources of quantum computing services 108 allocated to the customer in service provider network 106 (as allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ); also see [0091] entanglement generated by the two-qubit operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh with Bhaskar because Bhaskar’s teaching of providing a user interface that allowing the user to allocate the qubits to distributing the entanglement into the quantum computing system would have provided Naveh’s system with the advantage and capability to enable the user to easily managing and distributing the entanglement in order to provide secure quantum communications which improving the system performance and efficiency (see Bhaskar, [0095] “using secure quantum communications implemented using distributed entanglement”).
Naveh and Bhaskar fail to explicitly teach quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ), the QIZ metadata indicating that a quantum process is associated with the first QIZ, and each respective QIZ having a plurality of qubits associated therewith that is inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ, wherein requests by quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed based on the QIZ metadata to the respective QIZ, and wherein the resource comprises a first local service that is associated with the first QIZ.
However, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ), the QIZ metadata indicating that a quantum process is associated with the first QIZ (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0092] lines 1-4, “mapping a quantum computing task to be processed with the qubit topological structure”, that is, forming a mapping between the logical qubit of the quantum computing task and the physical qubit of the quantum chip (as QIZ metadata (i.e., mapping is formed)); also see Fig. 10, P1 allocation (quantum computing task P1) is associated with a QIZ (partition left) and P2 allocation (quantum computing task P2) is associated with a QIZ (partition right); [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes (as plurality of QIZs));
each respective QIZ having a plurality of qubits associated therewith that is inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ (Fang, [0047] lines 1-11, since the timing for all qubits in the quantum circuit corresponding to the integral quantum computing task to execute quantum logic gates is clear and unambiguous, the qubits that execute the dual-bit quantum logic gate with the same timing are spatially isolated when partitioning the qubit topological structure corresponding to the integral quantum computing task, and thus crosstalk is directly and effectively avoided (as inaccessible to quantum processes not associated with the respective QIZ) when executing the integral quantum computing task after completing the mapping of the integral quantum computing task to the qubit topological structure; also see [0155] After combining by using the quantum computing task combining module 430 in the present application, the timings of Individual quantum computing tasks in the integral quantum computing task are known, and the timings can be utilized in the mapping process to effectively avoid the crosstalk);
wherein quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed based on the QIZ metadata to the respective QIZ (Fang, Fig. 12, S45; [0079] lines 6-8, how to schedule quantum computing tasks to ensure full utilization of the quantum chip cluster for executing tasks; [0161] lines 1-10, After finding the qubit topological structure, the quantum computing task scheduling and mapping modules schedules a quantum computing task to be executed based on the updated quantum computing task queue, and maps the quantum computing task to be executed to the qubit topological structure in order of priority from high to low. At this point, the quantum computer operating system completes the process of the quantum computing task, and then executes the corresponding quantum computing task in the quantum chip (as quantum processes associated with the respective QIZ are routed/assigned (i.e., to be executed) based on the QIZ metadata (i.e., mapping) to the respective QIZ, so each partition is executing each quantum computing task respectively)).
wherein the resource comprises a first local service that is associated with the first QIZ (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation with group of qubits (as first local service that is associated with first QIZ), P2 allocation; [0119] lines 13-17, it is very important to find an optimized mapping region (i.e., the qubit topology) for the quantum computing task (as local service that is associated with the QIZ) in a quantum chip meeting a requirement from a quantum chip cluster; [0119] lines 24-25, avoidance of crosstalk).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh and Bhaskar with Fang because Fang’s teaching of providing an quantum isolation mapping that avoiding the crosstalk between the quantum computing tasks would have provided Naveh and Bhaskar’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to improving the utilization of qubits in the quantum chip (see Fang, [0044] “improving the utilization of qubits in the quantum chip”).
Naveh, Bhaskar and Fang fail to specifically teach when routing quantum processes to the respective QIZ, it is requests by quantum processes are routed based on the QIZ metadata.
However, Griffin teaches requests by quantum processes are routed based on the QIZ metadata (Griffin, Fig. 2, 12-1 to 12-N quantum server A to N, 36 QS metadata, 20 router table; [0032] lines 1-20, The quantum computing system 10 includes a quantum computer task manager 34 that maintains quantum system metadata 36 regarding a current state of the qubits 30, and that can access other information, such as information contained in the router table 20 and the quantum computing system information 32, to provide a consolidated source of information regarding the quantum computing system 10. The quantum system metadata 36 may include, by way of non-limiting example, information that identifies the particular qubits 30 used by each quantum service 12, and the superposition and entanglement statuses of the qubits 30. The quantum computer task manager 34 can query the quantum channel router 16 for the router table 20 periodically, or in response to a request from another task for information about the quantum computing system 10. In some implementations, the quantum computer task manager 34 may actually maintain the information in the router table 20, and the quantum channel router 16 may query the quantum computer task manager 34 as needed to route messages to and from the quantum services 12; [0027] lines 1-5, Upon receipt of a message, the quantum channel router 16 accesses the router table 20 to determine the quantum channel 14 associated with the quantum service 12 identified by the destination quantum service identifier in the message; [0034] lines 1-3, One such task may be a scheduler service 42 that is responsible for executing tasks, such as the quantum services 12; (please note: QIZ was taught by Fang)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar and Fang with Griffin because Griffin’s teaching of routing the messages/request from other task/quantum process to other place based on the quantum metadata would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar and Fang’s system with the advantage and capability to ensuring the correct routing for the quantum task message/requests in order to improving the system performance and efficiency.
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin fail to specifically teach the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first local service that identifies a time at which the first local service was last utilized by a process.
However, Heuvel teaches the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first content that identifies a time at which the first content was last utilized by a process (Heuvel, [0009] lines 1-2, a usage indicator for providing a measure of usage associated with the content; [0060] lines 1-8, a usage indicator records the following measures of usage: the total consumed amount of content for a given content ID, the amount of consumed content since the last report to the service provider, the total playback time, the playback time since the last report to the service provider, the time stamp of the last report to the service provider, and the number of times the content has been accessed; [0054] lines 1-5, the measure of usage includes a time stamp of the last communication of the measure of usage. The license may in this situation specify an allowed report interval. For example, each time the measure of usage has been communicated to the service provider, the usage indicator records a timestamp (as last time of accessing the content)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin with Heuvel because Heuvel’s teaching of usage indicator (as metadata) that recording the last time of the content has been accessed would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang and Griffin’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily tracking the accessing time which improving the resource utilization and system performance.
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and Heuvel fail to specifically teach when deallocation of the resources comprises causing the first local service to terminate
However, Tuunanen teaches when deallocation of the resources comprises causing the first local service to terminate (Tuunanen, Fig. 4, 4-18, 4-19; Col 6, lines 5-7, In step 4-18 the CCF orders the SSF to release the resources and in step 4-19 the SSF orders the service logic to terminate the execution of the service logic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and Heuvel with Tuunanen because Tuunanen’s teaching of terminating the service logic when the resource is released would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and Heuvel’s system with the advantage and capability to improving the resource utilization as well as to preventing any potential system issues due to the resources is released which improving the system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 17, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen teach the invention according to claim 16 above. Naveh further teaches wherein the quantum functional block metadata further identifies a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block (Naveh, [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; [0067] lines 9-10, a time or cycle number of the release; [0202] lines 23-25, implementation may utilize different sets of qubits in different timeframes; (as a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block; see Fig 8C, 801, qubits 1-3 start at 0 cycle and end at cycle 2)). In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
Further, Heuvel teaches metadata identifies a time of last access (Heuvel, [0009] lines 1-2, a usage indicator for providing a measure of usage associated with the content; [0060] lines 1-8, a usage indicator records the following measures of usage: the total consumed amount of content for a given content ID, the amount of consumed content since the last report to the service provider, the total playback time, the playback time since the last report to the service provider, the time stamp of the last report to the service provider, and the number of times the content has been accessed; [0054] lines 1-5, the measure of usage includes a time stamp of the last communication of the measure of usage. The license may in this situation specify an allowed report interval. For example, each time the measure of usage has been communicated to the service provider, the usage indicator records a timestamp (as last time of accessing the content)).
As per claim 19, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen teach the invention according to claim 16 above. Naveh further teaches wherein the resource comprises the qubit that is associated with the first quantum functional block, and wherein the quantum functional block metadata further identifies time of access of the qubit that identifies a time at which the qubit was utilized by a process associated with the first quantum functional block (Naveh, [0150] lines 8-10, the metadata may indicate a range of cycles and a set of qubits that are utilized during the range of the cycles to implement the functional block; [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations... Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; [0041] lines 4-5, each functional block may correspond to a task (as process associated with first functional block); [0202] lines 23-25, implementation may utilize different sets of qubits in different timeframes; (as a time for each qubit of a plurality of qubits associated with the first quantum functional block; see Fig 8C, 801, qubits 1-3 start at 0 cycle and end at cycle 2)). In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes), wherein the resource comprises a first local service that is associated with the first QIZ, and the qubit [resource] and content are first local service (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation with group of qubits (as first local service that is associated with first QIZ), P2 allocation; [0119] lines 13-17, it is very important to find an optimized mapping region (i.e., the qubit topology) for the quantum computing task (as local service that is associated with the QIZ) in a quantum chip meeting a requirement from a quantum chip cluster; [0119] lines 24-25, avoidance of crosstalk).
Further, Heuvel teaches the QIZ metadata identifies a last time of access of the first content that identifies a time at which the first content was last utilized by a process (Heuvel, [0009] lines 1-2, a usage indicator for providing a measure of usage associated with the content; [0060] lines 1-8, a usage indicator records the following measures of usage: the total consumed amount of content for a given content ID, the amount of consumed content since the last report to the service provider, the total playback time, the playback time since the last report to the service provider, the time stamp of the last report to the service provider, and the number of times the content has been accessed; [0054] lines 1-5, the measure of usage includes a time stamp of the last communication of the measure of usage. The license may in this situation specify an allowed report interval. For example, each time the measure of usage has been communicated to the service provider, the usage indicator records a timestamp (as last time of accessing the content)).
As per claim 20, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen teach the invention according to claim 16 above. Naveh further teaches obtaining the quantum functional block metadata for each of the plurality of different quantum functional blocks implemented on the first quantum computing system, obtaining second quantum functional block metadata for each of a plurality of different quantum functional blocks implemented on a second quantum computing system (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801, 802b, 803, 804c, 805, 806 (as quantum functional blocks), qubits, cycles; also see Fig. 11B, F1, F2, F3 functional blocks with 6 qubits inputs within a quantum circuit (as one of quantum computing system); [0017] lines 16-20, obtaining metadata from a functional-level processing component, wherein the metadata comprise an artifact associated with the gate-level implementation of the functional block; and compiling the gate-level representation of the quantum circuit (as a first quantum computing system); [0041] lines 1-3, the quantum circuit may be represented as a set of functional blocks ordered with a DAG mapping; [0044] the function library may be used for many different quantum circuits based on the initial pre-processing; [0193] lines 1-3, FIGS. 8A-8D showing illustrations of quantum circuits (as including first and second quantum computing systems); also see [0003] lines 4-6, compile gate-level representations of quantum circuits to thereby synthesize respective executable circuits) and further comprising:
determining, based on the second quantum functional block metadata for a second quantum functional block of the second quantum computing system, that a resource associated with the second quantum functional block of the second quantum computing system should be deallocated; and causing a deallocation of the resource associated with the second quantum functional block of the second quantum computing system (Naveh, [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 10B and Fig. 11B; (as the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block of another (second) quantum circuit (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block); see Fig. 10B and 11B]).
In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ) (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of MUTHA et al. (US Pub. 2023/0109690 A1).
MUTHA was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 18, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen teach the invention according to claim 17 above. Naveh further teaches wherein the resource comprises a qubit associated with the first quantum functional block, and wherein determining, based on the quantum functional block metadata for the first quantum functional block, that the resource associated with the first quantum functional block should be deallocated comprises determining, based on the quantum functional block metadata for the first quantum functional block (Naveh, Fig. 8C, 801 (as first quantum functional block); also see another example Fig.11B, 1110 F1 (as first quantum functional block); [0197] lines 18-31, qubit-specific information may be included in an artifact relating to an implementation. In some exemplary embodiments, the function library may comprise for each implementation a set of entries comprising (qubit, (start cycle, end cycle)), indicating for each qubit a relative start cycle with respect to the implementation (e.g., starting on the first cycle of the implementation, cycle 1, or later) and a respective relative end cycle after which the qubit may be utilized by other implementations...Additionally, or alternatively, such information may be provided as part of the metadata; Fig. 4, 440 compile the quantum program, 450 execute the quantum circuit; [0218] lines 1-5, depicting exemplary alternative scheduling of functional blocks of a DAG…a DAG may represent a quantum circuit in a functional-level, in which each functional block is represented by a block; [0172] lines 3-5, qubit resources may be freed to be utilized by the remainder portion of the sub-circuit; [0197] lines 3-4, qubit 3 is released by Implementation 801 after the second cycle; see Fig. 8C and Fig. 11B; [Examiner noted: the metadata is obtained which including qubit utilization information (i.e., qubit, start and end time/cycles), the system use this metadata for compilation/executing which including determining when to releasing/freeing the qubit resource based on the metadata information of the first functional block (i.e., the released qubit resource is allocated to subsequent functional block; also see Fig. 11 B)]).
In addition, Fang teaches quantum functional block is quantum isolation zone (QIZ), and resources utilized by the first local service (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; and first local service that is associated with first QIZ); [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes; [0119] lines 13-17, it is very important to find an optimized mapping region (i.e., the qubit topology) for the quantum computing task (as local service that is associated with the QIZ) in a quantum chip meeting a requirement from a quantum chip cluster; [0119] lines 24-25, avoidance of crosstalk).
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen fail to specifically teach when determining, that the resource should be deallocated, is that the qubit [resource] has not been accessed for a period of time greater than a determined qubit [resource] access time interval.
However, MUTHA teaches when determining, that the resource should be deallocated, is that the qubit [resource] has not been accessed for a period of time greater than a determined qubit [resource] access time interval (MUTHA, [0279] lines 1-18, Where the resource monitor 408 has determined that a provisioned pod is idle or underutilized, the resource monitor 408 may then start a separate timer that measures the amount of time that the provisioned pod has been idle and/or underutilized. This measurement may inform the resource monitor 408 whether the idle or underutilized provisioned pod is, in fact, idle and can be terminated or deconstructed. Accordingly, the resource monitor 408 may compare this separate timer with the idle timing threshold to determine whether the provisioned pod can be terminated or deconstructed. The idle timing threshold may be measured in minutes (e.g., five minutes), hours (e.g., two hours), days (e.g., two days), or any other increment or measurement of time. Where the separate timer meets or exceeds the idle timing threshold (as determined qubit [resource] access time interval), the resource monitor 408 may then deconstruct or terminate the provisioned pod, which may then free up computing resources within the cluster of computing nodes 402; [0295] lines 10-13, Should the storage manager 140 have additional tasks and/or operations to assign, the storage manager 140 may assign those tasks and/or operations to the idle computing pods 424B,426B (as the resource during the idle time, it still can be accessed during that time, but will be freed/deallocated until the idle time pass the idle threshold (as determined [resource] access time interval); please note: qubit was taught by Naveh and Zhao).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen with MUTHA because MUTHA’s teaching of freeing the resources if the resource has not been accessed (i.e., idle) greater than a determined access time interval would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin, Heuvel and Tuunanen’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to freeing the idle resources for other tasks which improving the resource utilization and system efficiency (see MUTHA, [0012] and [0135] “The distributed architecture also provides scalability and efficient component utilization”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hadas et al. (US Pub. 2021/0019161 A1).
Hadas was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 21, Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Fang teaches QIZ metadata to indicate that association with the first QIZ (Fang, Fig. 10, P1 allocation and P2 allocation (as two quantum isolation zone; [0092] lines 1-4, “mapping a quantum computing task to be processed with the qubit topological structure”, that is, forming a mapping between the logical qubit of the quantum computing task and the physical qubit of the quantum chip (as QIZ metadata (i.e., mapping is formed)); also see Fig. 10, P1 allocation (quantum computing task P1) is associated with a QIZ (partition left) and P2 allocation (quantum computing task P2) is associated with a QIZ (partition right); [0152] lines 7-13, P1 allocation in FIG. 10 represent the mapping partition of one quantum computing task P1, P2 allocation represents the mapping partition of another quantum computing task P2 adjacent to the mapping partition of the quantum computing task P1, and the two mapping partitions are respectively assigned in the two dotted boxes).
In addition, Griffin further teaches receiving a request to initiate a local service instance of a global service instance executing on the first quantum computing system (Griffin, Fig. 1, 16 Quantum channel router (as global service instance, 12-1 quantum service, service B, 235 (as local service instance); [0034] lines 1-15, One such task may be a scheduler service 42 that is responsible for executing tasks, such as the quantum services 12, on the quantum computing system 10. Prior to executing a task, the scheduler service 42 may call the quantum computer task manager API 40 to obtain information regarding the qubits 30 from the quantum system metadata 36, information regarding the router table 20, and/or information about the quantum computing system 10 contained in the quantum computing system information 32. In response to the request, the quantum computer task manager 34 accesses the appropriate information from the quantum system metadata 36, the router table 20, and/or the quantum computing system information 32, and provides the requested information to the scheduler service 42 for use in scheduling tasks, such as the quantum services 12; [0035] In response to a request from the operator 44, the operations service 46 invokes the quantum computer task manager API 40 to obtain data from the quantum computer task manager 34 regarding the quantum computing system 10. The quantum computer task manager 34, in response to the request, accesses the appropriate information from the quantum system metadata 36, the router table 20, and/or the quantum computing system information 32, and provides the requested information to the operations service; [0028] The quantum channel router 16 sends the message to the quantum service 12-3 via the quantum channel 14-1); and
based on the QIZ metadata, routing a subsequent request for a service implemented by the global service instance to the local service instance (Griffin, [0019] lines 1-8, Such quantum-related metadata may include, for example, physical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, and which qubits are utilized by which quantum services. Such information may be desirable to an operator of the quantum computing system, and to other running tasks on the quantum computing system, such as a schedule; [0027] Upon receipt of a message, the quantum channel router 16 accesses the router table 20 to determine the quantum channel 14 associated with the quantum service 12 identified by the destination quantum service identifier in the message. Assume, as an example, that the destination quantum service identifier in the received message identifies the quantum service 12-3. The quantum channel router 16 determines that the rows 22-3 and 22-4 of the router table 20 are associated with the quantum service 12-3 based on the data in column 24-1. The row 22-3 indicates that the quantum service 12-3 is listening to the quantum channel 14-1. The row 22-4 indicates that the quantum service 12-3 is also listening to the quantum channel; [0028] The quantum channel router 16 accesses a threshold channel load 26 that identifies a maximum channel capacity of a quantum channel 14. With regard to the quantum channel 14-2, the quantum channel router 16 accesses the channel capacity data in the column 24-4 of the row 22-4 and determines that the channel capacity is equal to the threshold channel load 26, in this example, 95, and thus that at the current point in time the quantum channel 14-2 is at maximum capacity and cannot process additional messages; [0032] the quantum channel router 16 may query the quantum computer task manager 34 as needed to route messages to and from the quantum services 12 ( as based on the QIZ metadata, routing a subsequent request (i.e., message) for a service implemented by the global service instance to the local service instance (i.e., identifying quantum channel has capacity and routed to local service instance (i.e., quantum service that is associated with quantum channel); also see [0034] the quantum computer task manager 34 accesses the appropriate information from the quantum system metadata 36, the router table 20, and/or the quantum computing system information 32, and provides the requested information to the scheduler service 42 for use in scheduling tasks, such as the quantum services 12).
Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN fail to specifically teach modifying the QIZ metadata to indicate that the local service instance is associated with the first QIZ.
However, Hadas teaches modifying the QIZ metadata to indicate that the local service instance is associated with the first QIZ (Hadas, [0035] lines 3-19, Metadata 230 may be generated by inspecting the properties of each of the virtual machines 130A-130H in data center 140A and identifying those virtual machines where the properties indicate that the VMs are HA VMs. In some implementation, metadata 230 can be generated and/or updated after a change is detected in the system of the primary site, such as, creation of a new VM, modifying a VM property, adding a virtual disk, adding a network connection, etc. For example, referring back to FIG. 1, after VM 130H is created in data center 140A and its properties are set to indicate that it is an HA VM, metadata 230 may be updated to include VM 130H in the plurality of VMs identified in metadata 230. In another example, at one point, the properties of VM 130G may have been changed to designate the VM as an HA VM. After the change is made, metadata 230 may have been updated to include VM 130G in the plurality of VMs identified in metadata 230; [0043] lines 2-10, metadata 230 that includes identifiers for HA VMs and for each HA VM, identifier (e.g., “SD ID”) and/or location for one or more storage domains that are associated with the HA VM (e.g., virtual machine VM130A associated with storage domain SD160A and SD160B, etc.). For this example, the restoration module may identify storage domains associated with each HA VM by examining metadata 230. Including identifiers of storage domain in metadata 230 may reduce the time it takes to identify the associated storage domains using management information 220. (as modifying the QIZ metadata to indicate that the local service instance (i.e., VM) is associated with the first QIZ (i.e., storage domain); please note: QIZ metadata and QIZ were taught by Fang)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN with Hadas because Hadas’s teaching of updating the metadata to indicating the association between the local service instance with storage domain would have provided Naveh, Bhaskar, Fang, Griffin and HAN’s system with the advantage and capability to easily determining the association between different instances in order to allow the system to easily scheduling subsequence tasks based on updated metadata (i.e., association) (see Hadas [0018] “enhances efficiency of computing resources and minimizes downtime of computing resources”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 7-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the remark applicant’s argue in substance:
(a), Applicant's claim 1, as amended herein, recites a complex process that involves obtaining, by a computing device comprising a processor device, a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ, and is thus, by the terms of the claim itself, not performed in the human mind. Furthermore, a human mind cannot allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ.
Examiner respectfully disagreed with Applicant’s argument for the following reasons:
As to point (a), in response to applicant’s argument that “claim 1, as amended herein, recites a complex process that involves obtaining, by a computing device comprising a processor device, a request via a quantum isolation zone (QIZ) allocation user interface (UI) to allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ, and is thus, by the terms of the claim itself, not performed in the human mind”. Examiner would like to point out that this limitation is just an insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and which is well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). These additional elements and combination of the elements does not amount to significant more than the exception itself or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. And these can be reached on one of court case (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) see MPEP § 2106.05(d) II). Accordingly, a conclusion that the obtaining steps are well understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that “a human mind cannot allocate a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ”. Examiner respectfully disagreed. The cited “allocation” is no more than mentally scheduling/planning/allocating/assigning that a first plurality of qubits from available qubits on a first quantum computing system to establish a first QIZ.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument has not been found to be persuasive, and therefore the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZUJIA XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ZUJIA XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2195