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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 17/802879 has claims 1-8 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
Current application-filed on 08/26/2022 is 371 (National stage) entry for the International application PCT/JP2020/009006, filed on 03/03/2020. The priority filing date of this application is March 3, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated August 26, 2022 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
* Where it recites different ‘Math’ statement in the claim such as Math 1, Math 2 …. etc. are redundant and create confusion in the understanding of the claim language and should be removed.
* The nomenclatures used in these claims are confusing. Some examples of these are
- it appears that the following statements are repeated twice in the claim 3
θi is a phase of an i-th spin, where i is a natural number,
θj is a phase of a j-th spin, where j is a natural number,
Also the term Jvw is lacking nomenclature in the claim 3 and claim 4.
Careful consideration is sought in providing correct and accurate nomenclature in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder (such as “configured to”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a resonator unit,
a measurement unit,
a feedback configuration,
in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-2, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ingaki et al. hereafter Ingaki (Pub. No.: US 2018/0246393 A1), in view of Kanao et al. hereafter Kanao (Patent No.: US 10,027,334 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Inagaki disclose an XY model calculation apparatus, comprising:
a resonator unit configured to amplify a plurality of optical pulses (Inagaki: [0021]: ring resonator; [0038], [0117], [0120]: with time, the amplification intensity in the phase sensitive amplifier in the degenerate optical parametric oscillator 1 is stabilized, so that the oscillation intensities of the plurality of dummy pulses are maximized to a predetermined intensity);
a measurement unit configured to measure phases and amplitudes of the plurality of optical pulses to obtain a measurement result (Inagaki: [0021]-[0025], [0029]: a computer which computes interactions in the Ising model on the basis of coupling coefficients in the Ising model and the measured phases of the laser pulses is arranged. Further, a modulator which controls the amplitudes and phases of light injected to the laser pulses, on the basis of the computed interactions in the Ising model, is arranged at the joining position to the ring resonator; Also see [0043], [0093], [0095]); and
a feedback configuration configured to calculate and feed back an interaction related to a certain optical pulse of the plurality of optical pulses by using a coupling coefficient of an Ising model in response to the measurement result (Inagaki: Figures 6-8, [0138]-[0147]: Compensating Coupling Coefficient by Feedback Delay of L Round Trips) and, wherein the feedback configuration is configured to perform a feedback input of a correlation to be determined by a coupling coefficient of two optical pulses of the plurality of optical pulses result (Inagaki: Figures 6-8, [0138]-[0147]: Compensating Coupling Coefficient by Feedback Delay of L Round Trips; [0011], [0012]: a network of lasers or laser pulses, in a pair of lasers or laser pulses interacting with each other), and
configured so that only one component of pulsed light is to be measured (Inagaki: [0145]-[0147]: I-component intensity measurement).
Inagaki do not explicitly disclose XY model calculation.
Kanao disclose XY model calculation (Kanao: column 3 lines 38-65: the solution of a corresponding Ising model can be estimated from a solution that minimizes the energy of the XY model; Also see column 9 lines 25-30: the model to be solved may be, for example, an XY model).
Inagaki and Kanao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to quantum computing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above ISING model quantum computation application, as taught by Inagaki, and incorporating the use of XY model calculation, as taught by Kanao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to solve combinational optimization problem at a high speed., as suggested by Kanao (Kanao: column 1 lines 33-35).
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Inagaki and Kanao further disclose the XY model calculation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the component of the pulsed light is an in-phase component (Inagaki: [0145]-[0147]: I-component intensity measurement).
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3-4 and 7-8 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.
None of prior art of record teaches at least:
a)
(Claim 3)
wherein by satisfying, in a Hamiltonian equation (1) of an XY model,
PNG
media_image1.png
60
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a coupling matrix
Jij of Equation (6),
PNG
media_image2.png
192
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where
θi is a phase of an i-th spin, where i is a natural number,
θj is a phase of a j-th spin, where j is a natural number, and
Kij is a real symmetric matrix, and
θi is a phase of an i-th spin, where i is a natural number i,
θj is a phase of a j-th spin, where j is a natural number, and
Kij is a Hermitian matrix, and by satisfying, in a Hamiltonian equation (2) of a complex (numerical system) XY model,
PNG
media_image3.png
25
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a
coupling matrix of Equation (11),
PNG
media_image4.png
216
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
RKij: Real part of Kij
JKij: imaginary part of Kij
where
θj is a phase of a j-th spin, where j is a natural number, and
Kij is a Hermitian matrix,
a real number θ is given as an argument in a plane having amplitudes of the two optical pulses as axes, and the argument changes continuously to rotate from 0 to 2π.
b)
(Claim 4)
wherein a feedback signal αi to be used for the feedback input is determined so that a relationship
PNG
media_image5.png
23
523
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image6.png
28
545
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
60
182
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is satisfied by αi .
where i and j are natural numbers, vj is an amplitude of an optical pulse v at a j-th site of one of the two optical pulses, wj is an amplitude of an optical pulse w at a j-th site of the other of the two optical pulses, a matrix Kij of complex numbers is a coupling coefficient,
RKij: is a real part of Kij, and.
JKij: is an imaginary part of Kij.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inaba et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0279062 A1) teaches a Potts model computing device capable of computing a Potts problem that is a multivalued spin problem and includes an Ising model which store a value of a spin of the Ising model obtained in a case where a coupling coefficient is set in the Ising model computing device and to determine whether a computation is finished;
Ikuta et al. (Patent No. US 11662647 B2) provides an optical phase synchronization method characterized by involving applying a small phase modulation signal (dither signal) to local oscillator light, acquiring an error signal that is dependent on a phase shift, and controlling the phase shift.
INAGAKI et al. (Pub. No.: US 20180246393 A1) conceptually presents a quantum computation device capable of easily solving the Ising model to easily solve an NP-complete problem or the like mapped into the Ising model.
Takeda et al. (Boltzmann sampling for an XY model using a non-degenerate optical parametric oscillator network, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3 (2018), pp 1-11) present an experimental scheme of implementing multiple spins in a classical XY model using a non-degenerate optical parametric oscillator (NOPO) network.
Tamate et al. (Simulating the classical XY model with a laser network, arXiv (2016), pp 1-6) propose a physical implementation of a Boltzmann sampler for the classical XY model by using a laser network.
9. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187