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 . The amendment filed 12/08/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 2, 8, 9 and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are presented for examination.
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, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: an arithmetic apparatus (machine = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites:
change a first weighting coefficient assigned to a constraint term included in Hamiltonian so that the first weighting coefficient changes differently from a second weighting coefficient assigned to an objective term included in the Hamiltonian in process of reducing quantum fluctuations to obtain a ground state of the Hamiltonian used…
change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient in a predetermined period included in the process of reducing quantum fluctuations
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”. The limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer components nothing precludes the claimed limitations from practically being performed in the mind.
As to the limitations "change a first weighting coefficient assigned to a constraint term" and "the first weighting coefficient changes differently from a second weighting coefficient", Examiner notes that they are merely repeated in the original specification. As to these limitations, changing coefficients to solve mathematical/arithmetic equations are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. They entail a user deciding which coefficients to change – observing, evaluating, and judging – in a mathematical or arithmetic process. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
PNG
media_image1.png
673
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
627
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
420
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong two: The claim recites the additional elements at least one memory, at least one processor, and generate a first control signal for changing the first weighting coefficient, a second control signal for changing the second weighting coefficient, and a third control signal for changing a third weighting coefficient used for reducing the quantum fluctuations, wherein the arithmetic apparatus further comprises a quantum annealing circuit configured to apply quantum fluctuations to a plurality of physical quantum bits and change strength of interactions between the plurality of physical quantum bits on the basis of the first to third control signals. They are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
The limitations “for solving a combinatorial optimization problem” are intended use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional elements at least one memory, at least one processor, and generate a first control signal for changing the first weighting coefficient, a second control signal for changing the second weighting coefficient, and a third control signal for changing a third weighting coefficient used for reducing the quantum fluctuations, wherein the arithmetic apparatus further comprises a quantum annealing circuit configured to apply quantum fluctuations to a plurality of physical quantum bits and change strength of interactions between the plurality of physical quantum bits on the basis of the first to third control signals; they are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0066] The quantum annealing unit 102 is implemented by a superconducting circuit using a superconducting material…
[0098]… arithmetic apparatus 100 includes a processor 1001, a memory 1002, and a quantum bit circuit 1003. The processor 1001 may be various kinds of processors such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), or a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)… The control unit… implemented by the processor… The quantum bit circuit 1003 controls the quantum fluctuations of the quantum bit circuit, the strength of the coupling between the quantum bits, and the magnetic field during quantum annealing. The quantum annealing unit… is implemented by the quantum bit circuit 1003. Regarding the reading unit 103… the processor 1001 may read the state of quantum bits of the quantum bit circuit 1003 and store it into the memory 1002…".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the additional elements “for solving a combinatorial optimization problem” are no more than intended use, because no actual combinatorial optimization problem is solved in the body of the claim.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claims 11 and 13 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of these claims are rejected below:
Independent claims 11 and 13, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional element computer readable medium, it is interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims are substantially drawn to mental processes as their independent claims (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) mental processes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations "10… read states of the quantum bits", they are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claims recite the additional elements "10… read states of the quantum bits". They are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartmann, (Hartmann hereinafter), Quantum Phase Transition with Inhomogeneous Driving in the LHZ model (see IDS dated 03/02/2022), taken in view of Andrew D. King, (King hereinafter), Patent 10789540.
As to claim 1, Hartmann discloses… change a first weighting coefficient assigned to a constraint term included in Hamiltonian so that the first weighting coefficient changes differently from a second weighting coefficient assigned to an objective term included in the Hamiltonian in a process of reducing quantum fluctuations (see "reducing quantum fluctuations" as "strengths of the controllable local magnetic-field hk and Jk in Eqs. (2) and (3) are applied to all Np = Nl (Nl – 1)/2 physical qubits", "first weighting coefficient" as "Jk(s)", and "second weighting coefficient" as "Cl(s)", "The time-dependent Hamiltonian in LHZ reads
HLHZ(s) = HI(s) + HP(s), (1)
HI(s) = − Np∑k=1 hk (s) xσk, (2)
HP(s) = − Np∑k=1 Jk(s) zσk − Nc∑l=1 Cl(s) zσl,n zσl,w zσl,s zσl,e, (3)
where… Jk and constraints Cl, respectively, depend on time. Here, HI(s) is the driver term, and HP(s) is the encoded problem Hamiltonian to be solved.
The strengths of the controllable local magnetic-field hk and Jk in Eqs. (2) and (3) are applied to all Np = Nl (Nl – 1)/2 physical qubits where Nl is the number of logical spins in the original model… Cl is the strength of a four-body constraint at plaquette l… The indices (l,n), (l,w), (l,s), and (l,e) denote the northern, western, southern, and eastern physical qubits of the constraint l…" in page 2, 2nd to 3rd paragraphs) to obtain a ground state of the Hamiltonian used (see "We numerically demonstrate the implementation of the inhomogeneously driven transverse fields in LHZ and find an enhanced final ground-state fidelity and an enlarged minimal energy gap compared to standard quantum annealing" in page 1, col. 2, 2nd paragraph) for solving a combinatorial optimization problem (see "Quantum annealing is a metaheuristic that aims at solving combinatorial optimization problems which are encoded in Ising spin glasses" in page 1, next to last paragraph);
change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient in a predetermined period included in the process of reducing quantum fluctuations (see "first weighting coefficient" as "J" and "second weighting coefficient" as "C", "a uniform distribution of the strength of the longitudinal magnetic-field J with values between -1 and 1, and constraint strength C = 2J" in page 6, col. 2, 2nd paragraph);
generate a first control signal for changing the first weighting coefficient, a second control signal for changing the second weighting coefficient (see "first weighting coefficient" as "Jk" and "second weighting coefficient" as "Cl", "The strengths of the controllable local magnetic-field hk and Jk in Eqs. (2) and (3) are applied to all Np = Nl (Nl – 1)/2 physical qubits… Cl is the strength of a four-body constraint at plaquette l…" in page 2, 2nd to 3rd paragraphs) to obtain a ground state of the Hamiltonian used (see "We numerically demonstrate the implementation of the inhomogeneously driven transverse fields in LHZ and find an enhanced final ground-state fidelity and an enlarged minimal energy gap compared to standard quantum annealing" in page 1, col. 2, 2nd paragraph), and a third control signal for changing a third weighting coefficient used for reducing the quantum fluctuations (see "we modify our Hamiltonian (1) as
HLHZ(s,r) = sHP(s) − Np∑k=1 hk(s,r)xσk, (4)
where hk(s,r) is the strength of the inhomogeneously driven transverse field. In this paper, we choose a protocol for the strength of the transverse field that reads… This protocol first switches off the transverse field of the qubits in the first row and the auxiliary qubits at last… The protocol hk(s,r) is chosen as a continuous piecewise-differentiable function to avoid diverging derivatives of the Hamiltonian (4). Here, we have included a new parameter r which enters in an additional time-dependent function τ = sr with 0 ≤ τ ≤ 1" in page 2, col. 2, 2nd-4th paragraphs);
wherein the arithmetic apparatus further comprises a quantum annealing circuit configured to (see "We numerically demonstrate the implementation of the inhomogeneously driven transverse fields in LHZ and find an enhanced final ground-state fidelity and an enlarged minimal energy gap compared to standard quantum annealing" in page 1, col. 2, 2nd paragraph) apply quantum fluctuations to a plurality of quantum bits and change strength of interactions between the quantum bits on the basis of the first to (see "apply quantum fluctuations" as "strengths of the controllable local magnetic-field hk and Jk in Eqs. (2) and (3) are applied to all Np = Nl (Nl – 1)/2 physical qubits", "first" control signal as "Cl", and "second" control signal as "Jk", "The strengths of the controllable local magnetic-field hk and Jk in Eqs. (2) and (3) are applied to all Np = Nl (Nl – 1)/2 physical qubits… Cl is the strength of a four-body constraint at plaquette l" in page 2, 2nd to 3rd paragraphs) third control signals (see "we modify our Hamiltonian (1) as
HLHZ(s,r) = sHP(s) − Np∑k=1 hk(s,r)xσk, (4)
where hk(s,r) is the strength of the inhomogeneously driven transverse field. In this paper, we choose a protocol for the strength of the transverse field that reads… This protocol first switches off the transverse field of the qubits in the first row and the auxiliary qubits in the last row" in page 2, col. 2, 2nd-4th paragraphs).
As to the limitations "change a first weighting coefficient assigned to a constraint term" and "the first weighting coefficient changes differently from a second weighting coefficient", Examiner notes that they are merely repeated in the original specification.
About Examiner's interpretation of "reducing quantum fluctuations" as "strengths of the controllable local magnetic-field hk and Jk in Eqs. (2) and (3) are applied to all Np = Nl (Nl – 1)/2 physical qubits", Examiner notes that the Specification reads '[0005] Quantum annealing first applies quantum fluctuations to all quantum bits. Next, in the process of reducing quantum fluctuations, it strengthens interactions between quantum bits defined on the basis of the combinatorial optimization problem'.
Hartmann does not disclose, but King discloses an arithmetic apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to… (see ‘A quantum processor may be designed to perform quantum annealing and/or adiabatic quantum computation. An evolution Hamiltonian can be constructed that is proportional to the sum of a first term proportional to a problem Hamiltonian and a second term proportional to a delocalization Hamiltonian… where HE is the evolution Hamiltonian, Hp is the problem Hamiltonian, HD is the delocalization Hamiltonian, and A(t), B(t) are coefficients that can control the rate of evolution, and typically lie in the range [0,1]’ in col. 2, line 64 to col. 3, line 9).
Hartmann and King are analogous art because they are related to quantum annealing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of invention by applicant to use King with Hartmann, because King points out that "Quantum annealing is a computational method that may be used to find a low-energy state of a system, typically preferably the ground state of the system. Similar in concept to classical simulated annealing, the method relies on the underlying principle that natural systems tend towards lower energy states because lower energy states are more stable. While classical annealing uses classical thermal fluctuations to guide a system to a low-energy state, quantum annealing may use quantum effects, such as quantum tunneling, as a source of delocalization to reach an energy minimum more accurately and/or more quickly than classical annealing" (see col. 2, lines 53-63), and as a result, King reports a "method 500 for embedding a problem into an analog processor (e.g., a quantum processor) using properties of qubits and couplers. Method… selects a set of qubits and coupling devices based on their individual properties, which may vary between devices. The selected set of qubits and coupling devices may be used to embed a problem. An example of properties of qubits and couplers is dead/alive status, h-range, j-range, DAC precision, location on the processor, etc. Although it is possible to submit problems to a quantum processor without regard to the individual properties of the components of the quantum processor, method 500 uses information on such properties to (in at least some circumstances) improve the computation of the embedded problem by the quantum processor" (see col. 16, lines 45-59).
As to claim 3, Hartmann discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient (see "first weighting coefficient" as "J" and "second weighting coefficient" as "C", "a uniform distribution of the strength of the longitudinal magnetic-field J with values between -1 and 1, and constraint strength C = 2J" in page 6, col. 2, 2nd paragraph) at an early stage of the process of reducing quantum fluctuations (see "The protocol hk(s,r) is chosen as a continuous piecewise-differentiable function to avoid diverging derivatives of the Hamiltonian (4). Here, we have included a new parameter r which enters in an additional time-dependent function τ = sr with 0 ≤ τ ≤ 1. In this spatiotemporal formulation, s and τ are both controlled as a function of time with s = τ = 0 at time t = 0" in page 2, col. 2, 4th paragraph).
As to claim 4, Hartmann discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient in the process of reducing quantum fluctuations (see "first weighting coefficient" as "J" and "second weighting coefficient" as "C", "a uniform distribution of the strength of the longitudinal magnetic-field J with values between -1 and 1, and constraint strength C = 2J" in page 6, col. 2, 2nd paragraph), and change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient is the same as the second weighting coefficient at an end of the process of reducing quantum fluctuations (see "The protocol hk(s,r) is chosen as a continuous piecewise-differentiable function to avoid diverging derivatives of the Hamiltonian (4). Here, we have included a new parameter r which enters in an additional time-dependent function τ = sr with 0 ≤ τ ≤ 1. In this spatiotemporal formulation, s and τ are both controlled as a function of time f , the total sweep time" in page 2, col. 2, 4th paragraph).
As to claim 5, Hartmann discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient is the second weighting coefficient to a power of a value different from 1 (see "power of a value different from 1" as "√", "first weighting coefficient" as "Jk", and "second weighting coefficient" as "C", "FIG. S3. Scaling with the constraint C. The critical coefficients of finite-size free-energy Eq. (A3) in LHZ with randomly chosen instances of interaction strengths Jk… The scaling of constraint strength for all constraints is chosen to be C ∝ √Np" in page 11).
As to claim 6, Hartmann discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: change the first weighting coefficient so that a locus of change in the first weighting coefficient does not intersect with a first order phase transition line (see "From our free-energy expression (13) of LHZ, we calculated the critical coefficients for different system sizes and for the thermodynamic limit, respectively, and where we further computed the line of first-order quantum phase transitions" in page 7, next to last paragraph) when the locus of change in the first weighting coefficient is represented as a function with a variable being the second weighting coefficient (see "first weighting coefficient" as "J" and "second weighting coefficient" as "C", "a uniform distribution of the strength of the longitudinal magnetic-field J with values between -1 and 1, and constraint strength C = 2J" in page 6, col. 2, 2nd paragraph).
As to claim 7, Hartmann discloses wherein the constraint term involves three or more many-body interactions (see "The time-dependent Hamiltonian in LHZ reads…
HP(s) = − Np∑k=1 Jk(s) zσk − Nc∑l=1 Cl(s) zσl,n zσl,w zσl,s zσl,e, (3)
where… The third sum runs over Nc = Np = Nl + 1 four-body constraints among nearest-neighbor qubits on a square lattice…" in page 2, 2nd to 3rd paragraphs).
As to claim 10, King discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: read states of the quantum bits (see "The quantum computer can include a quantum processor that includes programmable elements such as qubits, couplers, and other devices. The qubits can be read out via a readout system, and the results communicated to the digital computer" in col. 3, lines 62-66).
As to claims 11 and 13, these claims recite a method and a program performed by the apparatus of claim 1. King discloses "methods for use in embedding a problem into an analog processor" (see col. 4, lines 7-8) performed by the apparatus – a "quantum computer can include a quantum processor that includes programmable elements such as qubits, couplers, and other devices" (see col. 3, lines 62-66) – that teaches claim 1. Therefore, claims 11 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the listing of references in the specification, none of these references was submitted in an IDS.
Regarding the drawing objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 9, last paragraph to page 11, next to last paragraph):
‘… the Office Action alleges independent claim 1 recites features that can be categorized as mental and mathematical processes…
… claim 1 is amended to additionally recite "a quantum annealing circuit configured to apply quantum fluctuations to a plurality of quantum bits and change strength of interactions between the quantum bits on the basis of the first to third control signals," and to clarify the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to "generate a first control signal for changing the first weighting coefficient, a second control signal for changing the second weighting coefficient, and a third control signal for changing a third weighting coefficient used for reducing the quantum fluctuations."
Applicant respectfully submits a quantum annealing circuit and physical quantum bits are not mental processes. Moreover, a quantum annealing circuit and physical quantum bits are not mathematical processes…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.04… II… A… 2. Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?… If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B… For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice… either at Prong Two or in Step 2B’
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of…’.
‘2106.07(a)… II… After identifying the judicial exception in the rejection, identify any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and explain why they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the exception’
About "additional elements", BASCOM2, (BASCOM hereinafter) reads:
“the ‘elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements [beyond those that recite the abstract idea”.
Examiner's response: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, because Applicant’s arguments conflate judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One) with additional elements (Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B). Throughout the prosecution of this application, in accordance with the guidance set forth in MPEP and in several decisions, BASCOM (supra) for example, the Examiner does not conflate judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s) (Step 2A, Prong One) with additional elements (Step 2A, Prong Two or Step 2B).
Applicant argues that the additional elements are not judicial exception(s) or abstract idea(s), but the "generate a first control signal for changing the first weighting coefficient, a second control signal for changing the second weighting coefficient, and a third control signal for changing a third weighting coefficient used for reducing the quantum fluctuations, wherein the arithmetic apparatus further comprises a quantum annealing circuit configured to apply quantum fluctuations to a plurality of physical quantum bits and change strength of interactions between the plurality of physical quantum bits on the basis of the first to third control signals" limitations were addressed in Examiner's rejection Step 2A, Prong Two and/or Step 2B. Applicant's arguments do not address these limitations as additional elements, as pointed out by the Examiner.
Applicant further argues, (see page 11, last paragraph to page 12, 3rd paragraph):
‘… the claimed features provide a technical improvement in the field of quantum computing. Specifically, paragraphs [0052] and [0053] of the specification disclose that by differently changing weighting coefficients, energy difference in quantum annealing may be increased, thereby reducing required computation time…’
OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.3 reads (underline emphasis added):
'But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice… (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs… (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because it is well established that "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (supra). A faster "computation" is still an abstract idea. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Applicant further argues, (see page 12, 4th paragraph to page 13, 2nd paragraph):
‘… the prior art does not teach or suggest the features of claim 1. Therefore, it is clear claim 1 provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because novel or non-obvious ('prior art does not teach or suggest the features of claim 1') abstract ideas are abstract ideas. Novel or non-obvious abstract ideas are species of the genus abstract idea. In the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance4, “novelty” or “non-obviousness” of an abstract idea do not match any of the considerations discussed for determining whether a claim with additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. When recited in a claim with an abstract idea, “novelty” or “non-obviousness” of an abstract idea do not qualify a limitation as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 103, Applicant's arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Claim rejections remain. Applicant argues, (see page 13, 3rd paragraph to page 15, 1st paragraph):
‘… cited references do not teach or suggest a first weighting coefficient that changes differently from a second weighting coefficient assigned to an objective term included in the Hamiltonian in a process of reducing quantum fluctuation…’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because claim 1 does not read ‘first weighting coefficient that changes differently from a second weighting coefficient', as argued. Claim 1 reads: 'change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient'.
Applicant further argues, (see page 15, 2nd to last paragraph):
‘… cited references do not teach or suggest "change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient in a predetermined period included in the process of reducing quantum fluctuations,"… Hartmann does not disclose C1(s) not exceeding Jk(s). In fact, Hartmann does not disclose a difference between J(s) and C(s), or how such a difference affects quantum annealing’
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as mapped in the Office action, Examiner interprets "first weighting coefficient" as "J" and "second weighting coefficient" as "C" in "a uniform distribution of the strength of the longitudinal magnetic-field J with values between -1 and 1, and constraint strength C = 2J". J changes values between -1 and 1 and it does not exceed 2J. Claim 1 reads: 'change the first weighting coefficient so that the first weighting coefficient does not exceed the second weighting coefficient'.
Therefore, claim rejections remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hartmann, "Quantum phase transition with inhomogeneous driving in the Lechner-Hauke-Zoller model", is an alternate version of the IDS reference "Quantum Phase Transition with Inhomogeneous Driving in the LHZ model" cited previously.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 7:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016)
3 OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
4 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 4/Monday, January 7, 2019 /Notices