DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 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 1-2, 7-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations “generating, by the classical computing device, a quantum computing device (QCD) profile for the quantum computing device, a QCD access Application Programming Interface (API) for the quantum computing device, and one or more quantum service APIs corresponding to the one or more quantum services” recite mental processes. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitation “by a classical computing device” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a management entity which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitations “identifying, by a classical computing device, a quantum computing device communicatively coupled to the classical computing device; obtaining, by the classical computing device, quantum computing device metadata for the quantum computing device; identifying, by the classical computing device based on the quantum computing device metadata, one or more quantum services provided by the quantum computing device” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations “identifying, by a classical computing device, a quantum computing device communicatively coupled to the classical computing device; obtaining, by the classical computing device, quantum computing device metadata for the quantum computing device; identifying, by the classical computing device based on the quantum computing device metadata, one or more quantum services provided by the quantum computing device” are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitation “by a classical computing device” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more.
The limitations “identifying, by a classical computing device, a quantum computing device communicatively coupled to the classical computing device; obtaining, by the classical computing device, quantum computing device metadata for the quantum computing device; identifying, by the classical computing device based on the quantum computing device metadata, one or more quantum services provided by the quantum computing device” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, it is a system claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 11 recites “a classical computing device comprising: a system memory; and a processor device communicatively coupled to the system memory” which recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more and recite intended use limitations that do not have patentable weight.
As per claim 19, it is a media/product type claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 19 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions” which are generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claim 11), it recites “wherein the quantum computing device metadata comprises an identification of a quantum service of the one or more quantum services, an indication of a current availability of a quantum resource, a route between the classical computing device and the quantum computing device, a current availability of a processing resource of the quantum computing device, or a current availability of a hardware resource of the quantum computing device” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 7 (and similarly for claim 16), it recites “detecting, by the classical computing device, a change in a configuration of the quantum computing device; and responsive to detecting the change: obtaining, by the classical computing device, updated quantum computing device metadata from the quantum computing device; and updating, by the classical computing device, one or more of the QCD profile, the QCD access API, or the one or more quantum service APIs based on the updated quantum computing device metadata”, which encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 8 (and similarly for claim 17), it recites “wherein obtaining the updated quantum computing device metadata for the quantum computing device comprises receiving the updated quantum computing device metadata from one or more of a quantum task manager, a quantum service scheduler, or a qubit registry of the quantum computing device” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 9 (and similarly for claim 18), it recites “wherein receiving the updated quantum computing device metadata is in response to a query from the classical computing device” which further describes the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7-11, and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-6, 12-15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krneta et al. (US PG Pub No. 2023/153155 A1) teaches a method for creating a Quantum Computing Service interface for accessing quantum computing resources.
Richardson et al. (US Pat No. 11,270,220) teaches exposing APIs for allowing clients to access quantum computing resources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195