DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 09/27/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-157193 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1 line 24; page 2 line 11, 30; page 3 line 17; page 4 line 3; page 4 line 24; page 5 line 13 "a transverse field function that define" should be "a transverse field function that defines".
Page 10 line 5 “the total Hamiltonian H is acquire” should be “the total Hamiltonian H is acquired”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6; claim 7 line 6; claim 8 line 8; claim 9 line 6; claim 10 line 5; claim 11 line 8 "a transverse field function that define" should be "a transverse field function that defines".
Claim 1 line 14; claim 7 line 14; claim 8 line 16; claim 9 line 14; claim 10 line 14; claim 11 line 17 “the qubit that optimizes” should be “a qubit that optimizes” because there is lack of antecedent basis for the qubit.
Dependent claims are also objected for inheriting the deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 17; claim 7 line 17; claim 8 line 19; claim 9 line 17; claim 10 line 17; claim 11 line 20; claim 12 line 20 recite “the variation”. There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "a variation".
Claim 5 line 5 recites "the quantum annealing". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "a quantum annealing".
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7-14 of copending Application No. 18/537,597 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are more specific than the examined claims. Therefore, the examined claims are anticipated by the reference claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
To demonstrate, Claim 1 of the examined application is compared with Claim 1 of the reference application in the following table:
Instant Application 17/664,821
Reference Application 18/537,597
1 . A processing system configured to solve a combinatorial optimization problem with binary variables by controlling a quantum annealer with qubits, the processing system comprising a processor configured to:
1 . A quantum computing system controlling quantum annealing and a quantum gate for processing a binary variable qubit to solve a combinatorial optimization problem of binary variables, the quantum computing system comprising: a processor configured to execute:
perform an annealing process to individually control, depending on time, each contribution of (i) a cost function that is to be optimized in the combinatorial optimization problem, (ii) a transverse field function that define a magnetic field orthogonal to the cost function, and (iii) an orthogonal field function that defines a magnetic field orthogonal to the cost function and the transverse field function;
an annealing process for individually time-controlling a contribution of each of: (a) a cost function optimized in the combinatorial optimization problem; (b) a transverse magnetic field function defining a magnetic field component orthogonal to the cost function; and (c) an orthogonal magnetic field function defining a magnetic field component orthogonal to both the cost function and the transverse magnetic field function;
and perform an optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value of the contribution of the orthogonal field function for each of the qubits corresponding to one of the binary variables of the combinatorial optimization problem based on a final state of the annealing process
and an optimization process for sequentially determining, for each of the binary variable qubits that constitute an optimal solution of the combinatorial optimization problem, an optimal value of the contribution of the orthogonal magnetic field function based on a final state in the annealing process
wherein the processor is configured to, in the optimization process, extract, from the qubits that have not been optimized, the qubit that optimizes an evaluation indicator for the final state of the annealing process in which an intensity parameter that gives a maximum value of the orthogonal field function is varied, based on a gradient caused by the variation,
an optimal qubit is defined as a qubit providing an optimal evaluation index in an evaluation of a final state of the annealing process in which a strength parameter of a pre-optimization qubit is varied for having a maximum value of the orthogonal magnetic field function, the optimization process includes: (i) extracting of the optimal qubit based on the evaluation index, which is phase information of a controlled qubit whose final states before and after the variation of the strength parameter are phase kicked-back states by a quantum gate circuit;
determine the intensity parameter that gives the optimal value for the extracted qubit based on the gradient, and
determining of the strength parameter, which is the optimal value of the extracted optimal qubit, according to the evaluation index;
output an optimal solution of the combinatorial optimization problem by mapping a set of the intensity parameters determined for each of the qubits.
(iii) outputting of the optimal solution by mapping a set of the strength parameters determined for all qubits.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, recites an apparatus
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula, such as solve a combinatorial optimization problem with binary variables, perform an annealing process to individually control, depending on time, each contribution of (i) a cost function that is to be optimized in the combinatorial optimization problem, (ii) a transverse field function that define a magnetic field orthogonal to the cost function, and (iii) an orthogonal field function that defines a magnetic field orthogonal to the cost function and the transverse field function (see at least page 7-8 formula 1 describes the performing of annealing processing, where coefficients or contributions A(t), B(t), and C(t) of the cost function, the transverse field function, and the orthogonal field function in formulas 6, 8, and 10 are individually control depending on time as illustrated in figure 4. Thus, the contributions are controlled or calculated by performing the mathematical formulas depending on time); and perform an optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value of the contribution of the orthogonal field function for each of the qubits corresponding to one of the binary variables of the combinatorial optimization problem based on a final state of the annealing process (see at least figure 10 illustrates the step to perform optimization process using mathematical formulas as described in page 11-15), wherein, in the optimization process, extract, from the qubits that have not been optimized, the qubit that optimizes an evaluation indicator for the final state of the annealing process in which an intensity parameter that gives a maximum value of the orthogonal field function is varied, based on a gradient caused by the variation (see at least page 13 describes the step of extracting is according to the formula 17 based on the gradient gi of the energy value, such that the qubit with the largest absolute value of the gradient gi among all qubits before optimization. Thus, the extracting optimized qubit is merely a mathematical argmax operation or computing values and applying argmax over a set), determine the intensity parameter that gives the optimal value for the extracted qubit based on the gradient (see at least page 14 formula 18 describes the formula to determine optimal intensity parameter Ci_o based on the grandient gi), and output an optimal solution of the combinatorial optimization problem by mapping a set of the intensity parameters determined for each of the qubits (see at least page 15 formula 19 describes the step of output optimal solution by mapping the set of optimal intensity parameters using equation 19). Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a processing system comprising a processor. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a computer component performing computer function of processing data. The claim further recites the limitation by controlling a quantum annealer with qubits, such limitation is also recited at a high level of generality and is merely recited as a result of performing the mathematical algorithm to control and calculate the parameter and contribution of the functions or at most mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception into particular technological environment, such as controlling quantum annealer. Thus, such additional elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer component. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to the step 2A prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more mere instructions to apply the exception. Thus, the claim does not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 2 further recites in the optimization process, extract the qubit that optimizes an energy value of the final state which is the evaluation indicator, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (merely describes the evaluation indicator as the energy value of the final states w, see at least page 13 describes the step of extracting is performed mathematically according to the formula 17). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 further recites in the optimization process, extract the qubit that optimizes the evaluation indicator when the intensity parameters initialized to zero for the qubits that have not been optimized are varied, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least page 13-14 describes the step of extracting is performed mathematically according to the formula 17 and formula 18 describes the equation for determining the optimal intensity parameter as the optimal value for whose evaluation indicator Fi is optimized and page 11 formula 12 describes the initializing the intensity parameters to zero). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 further recites a storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to, in the optimization process, store the optimal solution to the storage medium. The additional elements, such as a storage medium and the processor, are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., computer components performing computer functions of process data and storing data, which amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using computer component. Furthermore, the step of storing data (e.g., the optimal solution) is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A prong two and determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under step 2B ( see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Thus, the claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites in the annealing process, acquire the final state of a wave function for a total Hamiltonian including the cost function, the transverse field function, and the orthogonal field function based on time-dependent control of the total Hamiltonian by the quantum annealing, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least page 10 The final state w is obtained in accordance with Schrodinger equation expressed in the formula 11 under the time-dependent control of the total Hamiltonian in the QA process, and also see equation 1 in page 8 for the total Hamiltonian H). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 further recites in the annealing process, increase the contribution of the cost function from zero to an end value as time elapses, decrease the contribution of the transverse field function from a start value to zero as time elapses, and increase the contribution of the orthogonal field function from zero to the maximum value, and then decrease the contribution of the orthogonal field function from the maximum value to zero as time elapses, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see figure 4 describes the changes of coefficients or contribution in the annealing process, where contribution of the cost function A(t) is increased from zero to an end value as time elapses, contribution B(t) decreases from a starting value to zero, and contribution C(t) increases from zero to max value, and decrease from max to zero as time elapses). The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7-8 recite apparatus claims having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-10 recite method claims having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 11-12 recite product claims having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons. claims 11-12 further recites a computer program product stored on at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising instructions configured to, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operation, such additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., computer components performing computer functions of storing and executing instructions, which amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using computer components. Thus, the claims do not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), double patenting and 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 7-12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination of limitations, including performing an annealing process to individually control, depending on time, each contribution of (i) a cost function that is to be optimized in the combinatorial optimization problem, (ii) a transverse field function that define a magnetic field orthogonal to the cost function, and (iii) an orthogonal field function that defines a magnetic field orthogonal to the cost function and the transverse field function; and perform an optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value of the contribution of the orthogonal field function for each of the qubits corresponding to one of the binary variables of the combinatorial optimization problem based on a final state of the annealing process, wherein the processor is configured to, in the optimization process, extract, from the qubits that have not been optimized, the qubit that optimizes an evaluation indicator for the final state of the annealing process in which an intensity parameter that gives a maximum value of the orthogonal field function is varied, based on a gradient caused by the variation, determine the intensity parameter that gives the optimal value for the extracted qubit based on the gradient, and output an optimal solution of the combinatorial optimization problem by mapping a set of the intensity parameters determined for each of the qubits.
Lidar – US 20170364362 describes system and method for performing quantum annealing, [0049] describes quantum annealing, the system undergoes an evolution governed by the time dependent transverse field Ising Hamiltonian as described in equation having coefficients or contributions A(t) and B(t), wherein Hx is a transverse field function that controls the tunneling rate. However, Lidar does not teach or suggest the steps of performing anneal process to control each contribution and performing optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value as required in claims 1 and 7-12.
Tadashi – NPL Quantum Annealing in the Transverse Ising Model (IDS filed in 05/24/2022)– teaches an approach for performing quantum annealing to find optimal ground state to solve an optimization problem, wherein the quantum anneal process is better than the simulated annealing process. Equation 1 page 3 describes the Hamiltonian equation or Ising model with transverse field, which was tested in the transverse Ising model obeying the time dependent Schrodinger equation, where the transverse field term was controlled so that the system approaches the ground state. However, Tadashi does not teach or suggest the steps of performing anneal process to control each contribution and performing optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value as required in claims 1 and 7-12.
Dries – NPL Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving – teaches an approach to make fast changes in the Hamiltonian without exiting transitions, such as a simple variational approach allowing one to find the best possible counterdiabatic protocols given physical constraints, like locality. Page 2 figure 1 illustrates an example of CD waiter bringing a cup of water to a table slowly without spilling, but in order to be faster and without spilling the water, the CD waiter has to introduce a new degree of freedom (like a tilt), which do not show up in the initial and final states. Similarly, in quantum and classical systems, Hamiltonian H0 (λ(t)), which is time-dependent through the parameter λ(t). In general, λ can be a multicomponent vector parameter (for example, in the case of a waiter, λ can stand for his x and y coordinates), and the Hamiltonian picks up an extra contribution. However, Dries does not teach or suggest the steps of performing anneal process to control each contribution and performing optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value as required in claims 1 and 7-12.
Cao – US 20200327441 teaches a hybrid computer having quantum computer and classical computer for solving optimization problem. Figure 2B illustrates the flowchart for performing quantum annealing, which starts with the classical computer generating an initial Hamiltonian and a final Hamiltonian based on a computational problem to be solved, which are provided to the quantum computer, where the quantum computer 252 starts in the initial state 266, and evolves its state according to the annealing schedule 270 following the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, a natural quantum-mechanical evolution of physical systems, and the classical computer receives measurement results and perform postprocessing to generate solution to the computational problem. However, Cao does not teach or suggest the steps of performing anneal process to control each contribution and performing optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value as required in claims 1 and 7-12.
Orus – US 20240020568 teaches a method for solving a variational quantum optimization problem in a hybrid quantum classical computing system that includes a classical and quantum computer for minimizing a cost function. Figure 2 illustrates the flowchart of the processing of classical and quantum computers, wherein the classical computer obtains randomly the plurality of optimized variational parameters and send them to the quantum computer and the quantum computer configured to minimize the cost of the cost function. However, Orus does not teach or suggest the steps of performing anneal process to control each contribution and performing optimization process to sequentially determine an optimal value as required in claims 1 and 7-12.
Kadowaki – NPL Greedy parameter optimization for diabatic quantum annealing – teaches an approach to variationally determine a set of parameters in the transverse field Ising model for quantum annealing appended with a field along the y-axis. The method consists of greedy optimization of the signs of coefficients of the y-field term based on the outputs of short annealing processes. Page 2 define a time dependent Hamiltonian equation having coefficients A(t), B(t), and C(t) and figure 11 illustrates the time development of the coefficients as time elapses, wherein algorithm 3 describes the step of performing optimization process. However, such reference cannot be used as prior because exceptions apply.
Therefore, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as required in the independent claims. Accordingly, Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), double patenting and 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
Prosecution Insights