DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 06/02/2022. Claims 1 - 18 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 2 and 13 discloses a computer readable memory but the specification fails to disclose a computer readable memory as claimed.
Claim 3 discloses an electromagnetic signal but the specification fails to disclose an electromagnetic signal.
Claim 5 discloses a matric product operator (MPO). The MPO is disclosed in the specification but it stands for a matrix product operator not a matric product operator as claimed. There is no mention of a matric product operator in the specification.
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 2, 13, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claims 2, 13, and 18, they both disclose a computer readable medium. A broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “computer readable medium” would include both statutory embodiments and non-statutory embodiments such as signals. The specification does mention a computer-readable medium in paragraphs 0021 including some examples of what the medium might be. However, there is no mention of a computer readable medium as claimed though and the list of examples are not conclusive to limit the scope of the computer readable medium to only those examples. This leaves the scope of the computer readable medium to include transitory mediums which as forms of energy. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 – 4, 13, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 13, and 18 discloses a computer readable memory. There is no mention of a computer readable memory in the specification. This shows there is a lack of sufficient support for the computer readable memory in the claims.
Claim 3 discloses an electromagnetic signal. There is no mention of a computer readable memory in the specification. This shows there is a lack of sufficient support for the electromagnetic signal in the claims.
Claim 4 discloses a matric product operator. There is no mention of a matric product operator in the original specification.
Claims 1 - 18 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 recites the limitation “a block tridiagonal matrix having a block size greater than one”. There is no indication what the “one” is. It is unclear if the one is a certain size or something else. The scope of the “one” needs to be defined to know what the block size is. The scope of the size not being defined makes the claim indefinite.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 recite the limitation "the network". There is no previous mention of a network in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination the network will be treated as referring back to the tensor network disclosed in line 2 of base claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the uncontracted tensors" in line 3. There is no previous mention of uncontracted tensors in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a recursive relation of an equation including using the equation at least two times”. There is no specific equation mentioned in the claim. There are multiple equations disclosed in the specification. It is unclear which specific equation is being referred to in claim 1. This makes the scope of the equation and the claim as a whole indefinite since it is unclear which equation has a recursive relation and is used at least two times.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "solving for the rest of the tensor network" in line 10. There is no previous mention of a rest of the tensor network in the claim. It is also unclear what is solved. There is no mention of what process, algorithm, equation, etc is being solved for the rest of the tensor network. The claim discloses solving a Hamiltonian in line 1 but there is no indication that the solving of the Hamiltonian is or is not what the solving is in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “the rest of the tensor network” limitation in the claim and what is solved is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the storing" in line 1. There is no previous mention of storing in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites a computer readable memory. There is no previous mention of a computer readable memory in the specification making the scope of the computer readable indefinite. The specification discloses a computer-readable memory in multiple locations. For examination the computer readable memory in the claim will be treated as the computer-readable memory in the specification.
Claim 3 recites an electromagnetic signal. There is no previous mention of an electromagnetic signal in the specification making the scope of the electromagnetic signal indefinite.
Claim 5 discloses “a matric product operator” in lines 1 – 2. As indicated above, the specification fails to disclose a matric product operator as claimed. The specification does disclose a matrix product operator though in paragraph 0008. It is unclear if the matric product operator is meant to be the matric production operator from the specification or something else. This makes the matric product operator indefinite in view of the specification. For examination the matric product operator will be treated as the matric product operator in paragraph 0008.
Claim 6 discloses two different equations. The first equation is j = j + 1. There are no bounds on what the j variable can and cannot be. Putting anyone number in for j though would appear to give an invalid equation. For example, if j is 0 then the equation becomes 0 = 0 + 1 which reduced is 0 = 1 which is invalid. The second equation is j = j – 1. Substituting 0 in for j results in another invalid equation. The result is 0 = 0 – 1 which when reduced is 0 = -1 which is invalid again. This makes the equations in claim 6 indefinite since the equations themselves result in invalid results.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energy level variance" in line 4. There is no previous mention of an energy level variance in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 discloses the tensor network has at least 5 sites, preferably at least 20 sites, more preferably at least 50 sites. The wording makes it unclear how many tensor networks there actually are. The terms “preferably” and “more preferably” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably” and “more preferably” are defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 discloses the number of excitations is above 10, preferably above 100, more preferably above 1000. The wording makes it unclear how many excitations there actually are. The terms “preferably” and “more preferably” in claim 10 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “preferably” and “more preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the segments" in line 1. There is no previous mention of segments in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the orthogonality center" in line 2. There is no previous mention of an orthogonality center in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the orthogonality centers" in line 3. There is no previous mention of an orthogonality centers in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the two orthogonality centers" in line 4. There is no previous mention of two orthogonality centers in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the two MPS segments" in line 5. There is no previous mention of two MPS segments in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the MPS segments" in line 6. There is no previous mention of two MPS segments in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination the MPS segments will be treated as referring back to the two MPS segments in line 5 of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the solution for a matrix product state (MPS) or an MPS group" in lines 1 - 2. There is no previous mention of a solution for a matrix product state (MPS) or an MPS group in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the latter steps" in line 6. There is no previous mention of latter steps in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the size" in line 7. There is no previous mention of a size in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the system" in line 7. There is no previous mention of a system in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of repeating steps several times increasing the size of the system by adding more and more unit cells. The limitation has no upper limit as to how many times the steps are repeated adding the unit cells. This then leads to the repeating going on indefinitely. There has to be some limit to how many times the process repeats and how many unit cells are added. This makes the scope of the repeating and the adding of the unit cells indefinite since it is unclear how many times the process repeats and how many unit cells are added.
The term “several times” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several times” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how many times is considered several times.
Claim 12 recites a computer readable memory. There is no previous mention of a computer readable memory in the specification making the scope of the computer readable indefinite. The specification discloses a computer-readable memory in multiple locations. For examination the computer readable memory in the claim will be treated as the computer-readable memory in the specification.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “A computer-implemented of solving a Hamiltonian” in line 1. It is unclear what is computer-implemented. There appears to be something missing between computer-implemented and of.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the method" in line 1. There is no previous mention of a method in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the other tensors" in line 15. There is no previous mention of other tensors in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 – 17 recite the limitation “the computer-implemented method” in line 1 of each claim. There is no previous mention of a computer-implemented method in the claims or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the formed equation" in line 1. There is no previous mention of a formed equation in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination the formed equation will be considered the result of the forming an equation in claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the formed equation is in the form different from the form defined in base claim 14. The two forms of the equation appear to be uniquely different from each other. This makes the form of the equation indefinite since it is unclear if the equation is supposed to be in the form in claim 14 or the form in claim 16. The two forms do not appear to be able to be present at the same time.
Claim 16 discloses an equation with no bounds on what the variables can be. This leads to an equation with an invalid result. For example, the equation could be configured as 0 = 1 - 1 – 1 with a final solution of 0 = -3 which is an invalid result. The equation resulting in an invalid result makes the scope of the claim indefinite at this time.
Claim 17 recite the limitation “the number of times the equation is used” in lines 2 - 3. There is no previous mention of a number of times the equation is used in the claim or any base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Due to the numerous inconsistencies identified above between the current claims and original specification and drawings a proper scope of the claims cannot be determined at this time. The lack of any prior art rejections is not to be taken as any indication of patentability; it is a result of the indefiniteness of the scope of the invention. The Applicant is asked to make sure any future amendments to the claims put the claims in better form with regard to what is specifically disclosed in the original specification and drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136