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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “claims define a hybrid architecture (of quantum and classical computing devices) in which each method step is machine-implemented and requires physical manipulation of electronic or quantum-state data structures. None can be ‘practically performed in the human mind’, as required for classification as a mental act under the Guidance.” Remarks 10. The hybrid architecture is an additional element, not the abstract idea. The additional element of a hybrid architecture is not claimed with sufficient detail to make it more than a generic computer part.1
Applicant argues that the pattern recognition is carried out on a “huge amount of data, without requiring human thought or manual intervention.” Remarks 10. Huge amounts of data are not claimed. The current claims are directed to processing on “at least one data set”. This is an amount of data that can be processed in the human mind.
Applicant argues that a quantum processor is not a “generic computer but specialized hardware…” Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the prior art called quantum processors and their control systems are “well-known structures…”2
Applicant argues that the hybrid design incorporates the abstract idea into a practical application because “[t]his hybrid design enables real- time data-pattern generation and significantly optimizes usage of computing resources compared to conventional systems, thereby improving the functioning of the computer system itself.” Remarks 11. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that the following is an example of something that doesn’t show an improvement in computer-functionality, “Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer…” The hybrid quantum architecture is a well-known structure and amounts to a general-purpose computer in the space of quantum computing. Therefore, the additional element of the hybrid architecture can’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues, “These steps produce tangible technical effects such as reduced latency in pattern generation, optimized resource utilization, and improved pattern accuracy, thereby providing a specific technological solution to a technological problem in data mining and data pattern recognition.” Remarks 14. These argued effects are not claimed and not inherent to Applicants’ claimed method. The claimed method wouldn’t improve accuracy where the correct patterns didn’t have keyword counts exceeding a predefined threshold. That hole in the algorithm would not reduce latency, optimize resource utilization, nor improve accuracy. There argued improvement is not claimed, and argued improvement is not inherent to the claims.
With respect to the prior art arguments, the arguments are moot due to new art necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the mental concept of generating data and correlating data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, non-quantum processor and receiving data merely link the abstract idea to text processing and quantum computing. Further, the non-quantum processor is not claimed with sufficient detail to make it more than a generic computer part.3 The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the displaying step and claims to generic computer parts do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
All 112 rejections withdrawn, thank you.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150094959A1 to Ning et al, US9537953B1 to Dadashikelayeh et al (Dada) and US20120197644A1 to Nagano et al.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150094959A1 to Ning et al, US9537953B1 to Dadashikelayeh et al (Dada), US20120197644A1 to Nagano et al and US20200110851A1 to Pednault et al.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150094959A1 to Ning et al, US9537953B1 to Dadashikelayeh et al (Dada), US20120197644A1 to Nagano et al and CN 109981625 A to Du et al.
Ning teaches claims 1 and 7. A method of generating data patterns using (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301… so as to generate and output a log cluster hierarchy (step 305).”) the method comprising:
extracting, by at least one non-quantum processor at least one data set from one or more data sources; (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301…”)
processing, by the at least one non-quantum processor, the at least one data set to generate at least one first intermediary pattern comprising at least one first keyword, (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301), a tokenization is processed (step 302) so as to generate semantically meaningful tokens from logs.” The tokens are tokens of keywords. The tokens from one log are the first pattern, the tokens from another log are the second pattern.)
processing, (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301), a tokenization is processed (step 302) so as to generate semantically meaningful tokens from logs.” The tokens are tokens of keywords. The tokens from one log are the first pattern, the tokens from another log are the second pattern. Applicant’s metadata is a keyword, see instant application’s claim 5, “metadata corresponding to the at least one second intermediary pattern comprises at least one second keyword…”)
transmitting, by the at least one non-quantum processor, the generated at least one first intermediary pattern to the at least one(Ning para 38 teaches the pattern is sent somewhere within the chip so that “a similarity measurement on heterogeneous logs is applied…”)
generating,(Ning para 38 “After the heterogeneous logs are tokenized, a similarity measurement on heterogeneous logs is applied (step 303).”)
with the at least one metadata corresponding to the at least one second intermediary pattern to identify at least one correlation between the at least one first intermediary pattern and the at least one second intermediary pattern; and (Ning para 38 “After the heterogeneous logs are tokenized, a similarity measurement on heterogeneous logs is applied (step 303).”)
grouping one or more of the at least one first intermediary pattern with one or more of the at least one second intermediary pattern to generate the at least one pattern based on the at least one correlation. (Ning para 38 “This similarity measurement leverages both the log layout information and log content information, and it is specially tailored to arbitrary heterogeneous logs. Once the similarities among logs are captured, a log hierarchical clustering algorithm can be applied (step 304) so as to generate and output a log cluster hierarchy (step 305).” The log cluster is the grouping and the at least one pattern.) Ning doesn’t teach a quantum processor.
However, Dada teaches receiving, by at least one quantum processor communicatively coupled with the at least one non-quantum process, the at least one data set from the at least one non-quantum processor, wherein the at least one quantum processor is configured to perform data processing using quantum bit; (Dada 10:22 “Once a computational task in a request is translated into quantum machine instructions, the quantum machine instructions are transmitted to a quantum computer.”)
processing, by the at least one quantum processor, the at least one data set to generate… transmitting, … to the at least one quantum processor; and processing, by the at least one quantum processor, the at least one first… (Dada 10:22 “Once a computational task in a request is translated into quantum machine instructions, the quantum machine instructions are transmitted to a quantum computer. The quantum computer may execute a classical algorithm or a quantum algorithm or both to complete a computational task.”)
Ning, Dada and the claims are all processing log files. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use Dada in Ning in order to “enable users to perform data analysis in a distributed computing environment while taking advantage of quantum technology in the backend.” Dada abs.
Ning doesn’t teach a keyword count sort or threshold.
However, Nagano teaches wherein each keyword is associated with a count indicating a number of occurrences of the keyword sorting the at least one first keyword in descending order of counts of the at least one first keyword;… (Nagano para 63 “sorting the words in the list 500 according to the number of occurrences.”) identifying one or more first keywords whose counts exceed a predefined threshold value mapping the identified one or more first keywords whose counts exceed the predefined threshold value… (Nagano para 63 “a frequent word list 510 or 520 is generated by extracting words having the number of occurrences equal to or greater than a threshold from words stored in the count list 500…”)
Ning, Nagano and the claims are all pattern matching. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to start a word count for “analyzing more detailed context of speech data.” Nagano para 64.
Ning teaches claims 2 and 8. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing the at least one data set by the at least one non-quantum processor to generate the at least one first intermediary pattern and processing the at least one data set by the at least one (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301), a tokenization is processed (step 302) so as to generate semantically meaningful tokens from logs.” The tokens are tokens of keywords. The tokens from one log are the first pattern, the tokens from another log are the second pattern.) Ning doesn’t teach parallel operations. Ning doesn’t teach a quantum processor.
However, Dada teaches computations are performed by the at least one quantum processor… simultaneously. (Dada 2:54 “two or more computational components are executed by the quantum computer sequentially or in parallel or both thereof.” Parallel operations are performed simultaneously.)
Ning teaches claims 3 and 9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one first intermediary pattern and the at least one second intermediary pattern is in the form of a cluster or a key string or a combination of the cluster and the key string. (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301), a tokenization is processed (step 302) so as to generate semantically meaningful tokens from logs.” The tokens are tokens of keywords. The tokens from one log are the first pattern, the tokens from another log are the second pattern. Ning fig. 3 shows that the tokens are key strings.)
Ning teaches claims 4 and 10. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, (Ning para 38 “This similarity measurement leverages both the log layout information and log content information, and it is specially tailored to arbitrary heterogeneous logs. Once the similarities among logs are captured, a log hierarchical clustering algorithm can be applied (step 304) so as to generate and output a log cluster hierarchy (step 305).” The log cluster is the grouping and the at least one pattern. This information is transferred at least within the chip.)
(Ning para 38 “This similarity measurement leverages both the log layout information and log content information, and it is specially tailored to arbitrary heterogeneous logs. Once the similarities among logs are captured, a log hierarchical clustering algorithm can be applied (step 304) so as to generate and output a log cluster hierarchy (step 305).” The log cluster is the grouping and the at least one pattern.) Ning doesn’t teach transmitting and displaying.
However, Pednault teaches transmitting, by the at least one quantum processor, (Pednault fig. 1 quantum processor data is transmitted to quantum composer component.)
displaying, by the at least one non-quantum processor, (Pednault fig. 1 visualization data and para 37 “display of the quantum algorithm and visualization of the quantum processor can be provided concurrently.”)
Pednault, Ning and the claims all use processors to process data. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to display the information using a regular processor because quantum processors are wasted on graphics display.
Ning teaches claims 5 and 11. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one metadata corresponding to the at least one second intermediary pattern comprises at least one second keyword; and (Ning para 38 “Taking arbitrary heterogeneous logs 201 (step 301), a tokenization is processed (step 302) so as to generate semantically meaningful tokens from logs.” The tokens are tokens of keywords. The tokens from one log are the first pattern, the tokens from another log are the second pattern. Ning fig. 3 shows that the tokens are key strings.)
wherein identifying at least one correlation between the at least one first intermediary pattern and the at least one second intermediary pattern comprises:
mapping the at least one first keyword with the at least one second keyword; and(Ning para 38 “This similarity measurement leverages both the log layout information and log content information, and it is specially tailored to arbitrary heterogeneous logs. Once the similarities among logs are captured, a log hierarchical clustering algorithm can be applied (step 304) so as to generate and output a log cluster hierarchy (step 305).” The mapping is the comparing of each log.)
identifying the at least one correlation based on similarity between the at least one first keyword and the at least one second keyword. (Ning para 38 “This similarity measurement leverages both the log layout information and log content information, and it is specially tailored to arbitrary heterogeneous logs. Once the similarities among logs are captured, a log hierarchical clustering algorithm can be applied (step 304) so as to generate and output a log cluster hierarchy (step 305).” Identifying correlation is determining similarity.)
Ning teaches claims 6 and 12. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein processing the at least one data set to generate at least one first intermediary pattern comprises:
retrieving a set of at least zero pre-defined keywords; (Ning para 21 “The process then detects a set of pre-defined data-types such as date, time, IP and number and replaces the real value of these fields with the name of the field.”)
processing the at least one data set by removing (Ning para 21 “The process then detects a set of pre-defined data-types such as date, time, IP and number and replaces the real value of these fields with the name of the field. For instance, the system replaces 2014-07-09 with “date”, 192.168.32.10 with “IP”, and “12523” by “number”, and so on.”)
generating the at least one first intermediary pattern comprising at least one first keyword by: identifying at least one unique keyword in the at least one processed data set and the set of at least zero pre-defined keywords, wherein the at least one unique keyword is the at least one first keyword. (Ning para 21 “The process then detects a set of pre-defined data-types such as date, time, IP and number and replaces the real value of these fields with the name of the field. For instance, the system replaces 2014-07-09 with “date”, 192.168.32.10 with “IP”, and “12523” by “number”, and so on.” The unique keyword here is data or IP.) Ning doesn’t teach stop words.
However, Du teaches removing stop words. (Du p. 3 third to last paragraph “matching removing time and IP address parameter value. then the log is carried out the participle and removing stop words.”)
Ning, Du and the claims are all processing files. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to remove stop words because extra stop words increases processing time and it is common to remove them before processing information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Hicks whose telephone number is (571)270-3377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-4 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miranda Huang can be reached at (571) 270-7092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUSTIN HICKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
1 US 20090192041 A1 para 41 “In other instances, well-known structures associated with analog processors, such as quantum processors… and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments.”
2 US 20090192041 A1 para 41 “In other instances, well-known structures associated with analog processors, such as quantum processors… and control systems including microprocessors…”
3 US 20090192041 A1 para 41 “In other instances, well-known structures associated with analog processors, such as quantum processors… and control systems including microprocessors and drive circuitry have not been shown or described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring descriptions of the embodiments.”