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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis. Claim 5 recites “using…. controlling the eigenstates….”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly
more
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be
determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of
invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the
claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is
to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A
analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined
whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts,
mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in
Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the
second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A,
Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible
application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any
element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the
claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019
PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1, 5 are directed to a system and method of quantum system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A,
Step 2A, Prong 1
Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four
categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g.
mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human
activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial
exception as explained below.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5 these claims recite
Claim 1 recite a first quantum subsystem having a first set of eigenstates; a second quantum subsystem having a second set of eigenstates; a coupler connected to both the first quantum system and to the second quantum system, the coupler having a third set of eigenstates; at least one interaction drive associated to a respective one of the first quantum subsystem, the second quantum subsystem and the coupler, the at least one interaction drive configured to control interaction between the first set of eigenstates and the second set of eigenstates via transitions within the third set of eigenstates; an auxiliary quantum subsystem connected to the coupler; and an attenuation drive selectively operable at a drive amplitude to generate a set of stabilized states in the auxiliary quantum system, said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates.
Claim 5 recite using an interaction drive, controlling the eigenstates of at least one a first quantum subsystem, a second quantum subsystem, and a coupler, to stimulate a quantum interaction between the first quantum subsystem and the second quantum subsystem; and, subsequently using an attenuation drive, generating a set of stabilized states in an auxiliary quantum subsystem, and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second quantum subsystems via the coupler.
The claims recite a mental process. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. These are recited at a high level such that they could be performed mentally, and they are also disclosed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool. Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be
determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as explained below.
In Prong Two, a claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). Claim 1 recite a first quantum subsystem having a first set of eigenstates; a second quantum subsystem having a second set of eigenstates; a coupler connected to both the first quantum system and to the second quantum system, the coupler having a third set of eigenstates; at least one interaction drive associated to a respective one of the first quantum subsystem, the second quantum subsystem and the coupler, the at least one interaction drive configured to control interaction between the first set of eigenstates and the second set of eigenstates via transitions within the third set of eigenstates; an auxiliary quantum subsystem connected to the coupler; and an attenuation drive selectively operable at a drive amplitude to generate a set of stabilized states in the auxiliary quantum system, said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates.. Claim 5 recite using an interaction drive, controlling the eigenstates of at least one a first quantum subsystem, a second quantum subsystem, and a coupler, to stimulate a quantum interaction between the first quantum subsystem and the second quantum subsystem; and, subsequently using an attenuation drive, generating a set of stabilized states in an auxiliary quantum subsystem, and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second quantum subsystems via the coupler which recite an abstract idea and further the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding Claims 1, 5 these claims
This limitation is understood to be generic computer equipment 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 2106.0S(f))
Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. Do the additional element(s) amount to merely the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer? (Yes)
Step 2B
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are
directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis. Furthermore, each additional element identified above as being insignificant
extra-solution activity is also well-known, routine, conventional as described below.
Claims 1, 5: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The underlying concept merely receives information, analyzes it, and store the results of the analysis – this concept is not meaningfully different than concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see Electric Power Group, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; see Cybersource, obtaining and comparing intangible data; see Digitech, organizing information through mathematical correlations; see Grams, diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results; see Cyberfone, using categories to organize store and transmit information; see Smartgene, comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options). Further the claimed invention appears to be something that can be performed by head and hand (Gottschalk v. Benson). The claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem (DDR v. Hotels.com). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recite an attenuation drive selectively operable at a drive amplitude to generate a set of stabilized states in the auxiliary quantum subsystem, said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates and claim 5 recite using an attenuation drive, generating a set of stabilized states in an auxiliary quantum subsystem, and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second quantum subsystems via the coupler. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the computer art. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein US 2018/0032893 in view of Tomsovic et al. (Tomsovic) “Eigenstate entanglement between quantum chaotic subsystems: Universal transitions and power laws in the entanglement spectrum”. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 98, 032209 (2018), published 14 September 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.032209
In regard to claim 1, Epstein disclose A quantum system comprising: ([0004]-[0006] system)
a first quantum subsystem having a first set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc. 12 at fig. 1, 43 at fig. 2, etc. [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. first qubit 12, 43 with eigenstates)
a second quantum subsystem having a second set of eigenstates; ((Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 14 at fig. 1, 47 at fig. 2 [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. second qubit 14, 47, with eigenstates)
a coupler connected to both the first quantum system and to the second quantum system, the coupler having a third set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 16, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0040] etc. coupler 16 connected with first and second qubit 12 and 14, for example at fig. 1, coupling mechanism with eigenstates)
at least one interaction drive associated to a respective one of the first quantum subsystem, the second quantum subsystem and the coupler, the at least one interaction drive configured to control interaction between the first set of eigenstates and the second set of eigenstates via transitions within the third set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 18, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0033] control mechanism 18, associated with 12, 14 and 16, for example at fig 1, 18 control interaction between eigenstates in12, eigenstates in 14 transformed through the eigenstates of coupler 16)
an auxiliary quantum subsystem connected to the coupler; (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0033] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc, control mechanism 44 connected to the coupler and tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36)
and an attenuation drive selectively operable at a drive amplitude to generate a set of stabilized states in the auxiliary quantum system, (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0037] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc., control mechanism 44 tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36 to generate states in 44)
But Epstein fail to explicitly disclose “said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates.”
Tomsovic disclose said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates. (I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
In regard to claim 2, Epstein and Tomsovic disclose The quantum system of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein.
But Epstein fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the set of stabilized states are entangled with the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition within the third set of eigenstates is set by a probability of transition in the set of stabilized states, said probability of transition in the set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in drive amplitude.”
Tomsovic disclose wherein the set of stabilized states are entangled with the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition within the third set of eigenstates is set by a probability of transition in the set of stabilized states, (I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling mechanism to make weakly interacting between the bipartite systems via coupling with a transition probability with the states) said probability of transition in the set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in drive amplitude. (I. INTRODUCTION, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, G. Floquet system: Coupled kicked rotors, the probability of interaction in the states decreased exponentially when interaction strength tuned to be bigger (Equ. 51, 52))
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
In regard to claim 3, Epstein and Tomsovic disclose The quantum system of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein.
Epstein disclose wherein the auxiliary quantum subsystem is a first auxiliary quantum subsystem, the attenuation drive is at least one attenuation drive, the set of stabilized states is a first set of stabilized states, (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0037] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc, control mechanism 44 connected to the coupler and tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36)
control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc., control mechanism 44 tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36 to generate states in 44) further comprising:
a second auxiliary quantum subsystem connected to at least one of the coupler and the first auxiliary quantum subsystem; wherein the at least one attenuation drive further generates a second set of stabilized states in the second auxiliary quantum system, (fig. 6-7, [0034]-[0037] fig. 6, 136/ 138 connects to the coupler and provide multiple control signal to tune the strength of interaction and generate different set of states)
But Epstein fail to explicitly disclose “said second set of stabilized states being entangled with the first set of stabilized states and the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition in the third set of eigenstates is further set by a probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states, said probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in the drive amplitude.”
Tomsovic disclose said second set of stabilized states being entangled with the first set of stabilized states and the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition in the third set of eigenstates is further set by a probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states, (I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling mechanism to make weakly interacting between the bipartite systems via coupling with a transition probability with the states) said probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in the drive amplitude. (I. INTRODUCTION, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, G. Floquet system: Coupled kicked rotors, the probability of interaction in the states decreased exponentially when interaction strength tuned to be bigger (Equ. 51, 52))
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
In regard to claim 4, Epstein and Tomsovic disclose The quantum system of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein.
Epstein disclose provided in the form of a superconducting circuit, ([0015]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] with superconducting circuits) wherein the auxiliary quantum subsystem and coupler are embodied as a circuit element having a three-node superconducting loop involving two Josephson junctions in parallel, and an inductance. ([0015]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] a superconducting loop interrupted by two Josephson junctions in parallel and inductively couple qubits together)
In regard to claim 5, Epstein and disclose A method of operating a quantum system comprising: ([0004]-[0006] quantum system)
using an interaction drive, controlling the eigenstates of at least one a first quantum subsystem, a second quantum subsystem, and a coupler, to stimulate a quantum interaction between the first quantum subsystem and the second quantum subsystem; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 18, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0040] etc. coupler 16 connected with first and second qubit 12 and 14, for example at fig. 1, control mechanism 18, associated with 12, 14 and 16, for example at fig 1, 18 control interaction between eigenstates in12, eigenstates in 14 transformed through the coupling mechanism and to ramp up the quantum interaction between the qubit 12 and 14, for example) and, subsequently
using an attenuation drive, generating a set of stabilized states in an auxiliary quantum subsystem,. (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0037] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc., control mechanism 44 tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36 to generate states in 44)
But Epstein fail to explicitly disclose “and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second quantum subsystems via the coupler.”
Tomsovic disclose and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second quantum subsystems via the coupler.
(I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling mechanism to make weakly interacting between the bipartite systems via coupling)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
In regard to claim 7, Epstein and Tomsovic disclose The quantum system of claim 1
Epstein disclose wherein the quantum system forms part of a gate-based quantum computer, with the first quantum subsystem hosting a first qubit, and the second quantum subsystem hosting a second qubit. (Fig.1-7, etc. 12 at fig. 1, 43 at fig. 2, etc. [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. first qubit at 12, and second qubit at 14, the first physical qubit 12, the second physical qubit 14, and the coupling mechanism 16 collectively form a logical qubit for at least part of the quantum gate)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein US 2018/0032893 and Tomsovic et al. (Tomsovic) “Eigenstate entanglement between quantum chaotic subsystems: Universal transitions and power laws in the entanglement spectrum”. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 98, 032209 (2018), published 14 September 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.032209 as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yazawa et al. (Yazawa) US 2024/0007183
In regard to claim 6, Epstein and Tomsovic disclose The quantum system of claim 1
But Epstein and Tomsovic fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the quantum system is a routing system, further comprising a waveguide/transmission line connected to the coupler.”
Yazawa disclose wherein the quantum system is a routing system, further comprising a waveguide/transmission line connected to the coupler. (Fig. 2, [0030]-[0035] “A first output port of the beam splitter 254 is connected to a first input port of the coupler 256 by a waveguide 258, and a second output port of the beam splitter 254 is connected to a second input port of the coupler 256 by a waveguide 260” with a optical transmission line, using beam splitter to rout the signals)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yazawa’s quantum measurement into Tomsovic and Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yazawa’s quantum measurement using waveguide would help to provide quantum related measurement method to Tomsovic and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing quantum related measurement using waveguide would help to facilitate quantum computing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 101 rejection of claim 1 and 5, please see above. the examiner would like to suggest to incorporate claim 7 to claim 1 and 5 to help overcome the 101 rejection since in claim 1 and 5 eigenstates are just values.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant argues Epstein fail to disclose “an auxiliary quantum subsystem connected to the coupler; ", and “an attenuation drive selectively operable at a drive amplitude to generate a set of stabilized states in the auxiliary quantum system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed at Fig. 6, para. [0037]-[0038] various control mechanisms are connected to the coupler and the control mechanisms provide various Hamiltonian operators to control the states of the qubits. when performing a CNOT gate which create entanglement between the two qubits, for example. and the CNOT gate is included in the control mechanisms. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further applicant argued Tomsovic fail to disclose “how to create entanglement between the states.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Epstein disclose performing a CNOT gate which create entanglement between the two qubits, but it does not explicitly disclose the word “entanglement”. To make it more clear, the examiner rely Tomsovic to disclose said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates at I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION. As how to create entanglement between the quantum states is not claimed in the limitations, it just claims being entangled. The combination of Epstein and Tomsovic together disclose the recited claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The examiner would like to suggest (1) further define the hardware structure such as gates, to differentiate an auxiliary quantum subsystem and an attenuation drive, or interaction drive, etc. and to define how to create entanglement, to etc. (2) please use functional language to describe the claimed invention, (verb), please remember non-functional language has not much patent weight, etc. to further clarify the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) make the method claim 5 the same as claim 1 to help to move forward the prosecution, call to discuss if necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE
US 2020/0401920 2020-12-24 Killoran et al. (Killoran)
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR QUANTUM COMPUTING AND MACHINE LEARNING
Killoran et al. disclose An apparatus includes a plurality of processing layers coupled in series. Each processing layer in the plurality of processing layers includes a Gaussian unit configured to perform a linear transformation on an input signal including a plurality of optical modes. The Gaussian unit includes a network of interconnected beamsplitters and phase shifters and a plurality of squeezers operatively coupled to the network of interconnected beamsplitters and phase shifters. Each processing layer also includes a plurality of nonlinear gates operatively coupled to the Gaussian unit and configured to perform a nonlinear transformation on the plurality of optical modes. The apparatus also includes a controller operatively coupled to the plurality of processing layers and configured to control a setting of the plurality of processing layers… see abstract.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached at 571-272-7212. 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.
XUYANG XIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2143
/XUYANG XIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143