DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing of 6-15-2022. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below:
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 1-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 represent method, system and medium type claims. Therefore claims 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 20:
2A Prong 1:
A method for performing given processing using a quantum algorithm or a combined algorithm which comprises a classical algorithm and the quantum algorithm, the method comprising: calculating a quantum bit or a quantum volume for performing the given processing using the quantum algorithm, or for the quantum algorithm when the given processing is to be performed using the combined algorithm;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical concepts because they provide mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculations.
selecting a calculator from a plurality of calculators for performing the given processing based on the quantum bit or the quantum volume;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
and generating a control signal when the selected calculator includes a quantum calculator, wherein the control signal is to be transmitted to the quantum calculator and corresponds to an instruction by which the quantum calculator starts the quantum algorithm.
(adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-see MPEP 2106.05 (G))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
and generating a control signal when the selected calculator includes a quantum calculator, wherein the control signal is to be transmitted to the quantum calculator and corresponds to an instruction by which the quantum calculator starts the quantum algorithm.
(MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II) indicate that merely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer).
Regarding claim 2:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the control signal corresponds to information for the quantum calculator to generate a quantum state at a time of starting the quantum algorithm. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the control signal corresponds to information for the quantum calculator to generate a quantum state at a time of starting the quantum algorithm. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 3:
2A Prong 1:
wherein the given processing comprises performing a quantum chemistry calculation on a given chemical structure.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 4:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the given chemical structure is read out from a storage unit storing a list of chemical structures. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the given chemical structure is read out from a storage unit storing a list of chemical structures. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 5:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the given processing comprises a plurality of processing portions, the quantum bit or the quantum volume is calculated for each of the processing portions, the calculator is selected for each of the processing portions, and the control signal is generated for each of the processing portions (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the given processing comprises a plurality of processing portions, the quantum bit or the quantum volume is calculated for each of the processing portions, the calculator is selected for each of the processing portions, and the control signal is generated for each of the processing portions (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a division determination operation to determine a division method for dividing the given processing into a plurality of processing portions; and a division operation to divide the given processing into the processing portions based on the determined division method, wherein the calculator is selected for each of the processing portions divided at the division operation, and the control signal is generated for each of the processing portions divided at the division operation (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a division determination operation to determine a division method for dividing the given processing into a plurality of processing portions; and a division operation to divide the given processing into the processing portions based on the determined division method, wherein the calculator is selected for each of the processing portions divided at the division operation, and the control signal is generated for each of the processing portions divided at the division operation (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 7:
2A Prong 1:
wherein the calculator is selected in accordance with the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume and at least one selected from the group consisting of capacity, a characteristic, and a vacant state of an available calculator resource As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 8:
2A Prong 1:
selecting an execution timing or execution order for executing the calculator in accordance with the quantum bit or the quantum volume and at least one selected from the group consisting of capacity, a characteristic, and a vacant state of an available calculator resource As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 9:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the calculator is selected so that the quantum bit does not exceed a quantum bit that is able to be used by the calculator or the quantum volume does not exceed a quantum volume of the calculator. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the calculator is selected so that the quantum bit does not exceed a quantum bit that is able to be used by the calculator or the quantum volume does not exceed a quantum volume of the calculator. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 10:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a display control operation to cause a display to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume.
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a display control operation to cause a display to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume.
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claim 11:
2A Prong 1:
generating a list of calculators capable of performing the given processing based on the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume; As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- a list can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
and controlling a display to display the list of calculators capable of performing the given processing.
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
and controlling a display to display the list of calculators capable of performing the given processing.
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claim 12:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the display is disposed on a terminal different from a terminal on a provider side that comprises the classical calculator, and wherein the different terminal is able to be operated by a user. (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the display is disposed on a terminal different from a terminal on a provider side that comprises the classical calculator, and wherein the different terminal is able to be operated by a user. (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claim 13:
2A Prong 1:
wherein the selected calculator is selected from both of the classical calculator and the quantum calculator based on the quantum bit or the quantum volume. As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- selection based on evaluation can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 14:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the combined algorithm is a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) method. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the combined algorithm is a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) method. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 16:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
logic configured to transmit the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or information related to the selected calculator. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
logic configured to transmit the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or information related to the selected calculator. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 17:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a display configured to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or information related to the selected calculator (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a display configured to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or information related to the selected calculator (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claim 18:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a display configured to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or the information related to the selected calculator and a character string representing a structural formula or atomic coordinates or a chemical structure or information specifying a compound. (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a display configured to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or the information related to the selected calculator and a character string representing a structural formula or atomic coordinates or a chemical structure or information specifying a compound.
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Regarding claim 19:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a first classical calculator configured to perform an operation of the calculation logic, and a second classical calculator connected to the first classical calculator via a network and configured to perform operations of the sorter and the transmitter. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a first classical calculator configured to perform an operation of the calculation logic, and a second classical calculator connected to the first classical calculator via a network and configured to perform operations of the sorter and the transmitter. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)).
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.
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 limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder 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 limitation(s) is/are: calculator, logic, transmitter and sorter “configured to” in claim 15-16 and 19-20
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.
It appears Figure 1 and Paragraphs 22-24 captures the hardware configuration.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasprowicz et al. (“Kasprowicz” 20210158425 A1) in view of Rigetti et al. (“Rigetti” 10402743 B1).
Claim 1: Kasprowicz discloses a method for performing given processing using a quantum algorithm or a combined algorithm which comprises a classical algorithm and the quantum algorithm, the method comprising: calculating a quantum bit or a quantum volume for performing the given processing using the quantum algorithm, or for the quantum algorithm when the given processing is to be performed using the combined algorithm (Paragraph 117; performance estimations (functional equivalent to determining bit or volume));
selecting a calculator from a plurality of calculators for performing the given processing based on the quantum bit or the quantum volume (Paragraphs 35, 121 and 136; selection process for hardware);
Kasprowicz discloses initiating operations(Paragraph 226) however may not explicitly disclose every feature regarding and generating a control signal when the selected calculator includes a quantum calculator, wherein the control signal is to be transmitted to the quantum calculator and corresponds to an instruction by which the quantum calculator starts the quantum algorithm.
Rigetti is provided because it discloses quantum architecture and further instructions (control signals) generated and sent to the quantum processor, further causes the processor to perform the data processing task (abstract and Claim 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device in order provide additional processing capabilities for enhanced performance.
Claim 2: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein the control signal corresponds to information for the quantum calculator to generate a quantum state at a time of starting the quantum algorithm (Rigetti: Column 3, Lines 15-34; control signal generates a state).
Claim 3: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein the given processing comprises performing a quantum chemistry calculation on a given chemical structure(Kasprowicz: Paragraphs 126-127; chemistry domain).
Claim 4: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 3, wherein the given chemical structure is read out from a storage unit storing a list of chemical structures(Kasprowicz: Paragraphs 126-127 and 129; chemistry domain).
Claim 5: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein the given processing comprises a plurality of processing portions, the quantum bit or the quantum volume is calculated for each of the processing portions, the calculator is selected for each of the processing portions, and the control signal is generated for each of the processing portions Kasprowicz: Paragraph 117; performance estimations (functional equivalent to determining bit or volume, Paragraphs 35, 121 and 136; selection process) and Rigetti: abstract, Column 4, Lines 21-29 and Claim 1; control signal generation).
Claim 6: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, further comprising: a division determination operation to determine a division method for dividing the given processing into a plurality of processing portions; and a division operation to divide the given processing into the processing portions based on the determined division method, wherein the calculator is selected for each of the processing portions divided at the division operation, and the control signal is generated for each of the processing portions divided at the division operation (Kasprowicz: Paragraph 46-48; identify portions (divisions) for performing processes).
Claim 7: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 6, wherein the calculator is selected in accordance with the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume and at least one selected from the group consisting of capacity, a characteristic, and a vacant state of an available calculator resource (Kasprowicz: Paragraph 46-48; identify portions (divisions) for performing processes; Paragraphs 117 (performance estimation) 35, 121 and 136; selection in relation to performance).
Claim 8: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 7, further comprising: selecting an execution timing or execution order for executing the calculator in accordance with the quantum bit or the quantum volume and at least one selected from the group consisting of capacity, a characteristic, and a vacant state of an available calculator resource (Kasprowicz: Paragraphs 51-52 and 91; schedule time slot Paragraphs 117 (performance estimation) 35, 121 and 136; selection in relation to performance).
Claim 9: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein the calculator is selected so that the quantum bit does not exceed a quantum bit that is able to be used by the calculator or the quantum volume does not exceed a quantum volume of the calculator (Kasprowicz: Paragraphs 117 (performance estimation would determine thresholds) 35, 121 and 136; selection in relation to performance).
Claim 10: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, further comprising: a display control operation to cause a display to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume (Kasprowicz: Figures 6-7 and Paragraph 132; development kit with quantum bits selected for execution).
Claim 11: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating a list of calculators capable of performing the given processing based on the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume; and controlling a display to display the list of calculators capable of performing the given processing (Kasprowicz: Figure 7:724-728 and Paragraph 136-137; gate type list).
Claim 12: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 10, wherein the display is disposed on a terminal different from a terminal on a provider side that comprises the classical calculator, and wherein the different terminal is able to be operated by a user (Kasprowicz: Figure 6-7 and Paragraph 136-137; user operated interface).
Claim 13: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein the selected calculator is selected from both of the classical calculator and the quantum calculator based on the quantum bit or the quantum volume(Kasprowicz: Paragraphs 46 (classical and quantum processing); Paragraphs 117 (performance estimation) 35, 121 and 136; selection in relation to performance).
Claim 14: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein the combined algorithm is a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) method (Kasprowicz: Paragraph 211).
Claim 15: Kasprowicz discloses a calculator system, comprising: a plurality of calculators (Paragraphs 35, 121);
and a classical calculator configured to select a calculator for performing given processing from among the plurality of calculators, the given processing to be performed using a quantum algorithm or a combined algorithm of a classical algorithm and the quantum algorithm (Paragraphs 35 (selection), 46 (based on technologies calculation performed),and 136; selection process for hardware) wherein:
the calculators include at least one quantum calculator, the classical calculator comprises: calculation logic configured to calculate a quantum bit or quantum volume for performing the given processing using the quantum algorithm, or for the quantum algorithm in a case of performing the given processing using the combined algorithm (Paragraph 117; performance estimations (functional equivalent to determining bit or volume));;
a sorter configured to select the calculator for performing the given processing based on the quantum bit or the quantum volume(Paragraphs 35 (selection), 46 (based on technologies calculation performed/sort), 121 and 136; selection process for hardware);
Kasprowicz discloses initiating operations(Paragraph 226) however may not explicitly disclose every feature regarding and a transmitter configured to transmit an instruction to the quantum calculator when the calculator selected by the sorter includes the quantum calculator, the instruction being one by which the quantum calculator starts the quantum algorithm.
Rigetti is provided because it discloses quantum architecture and further instructions (control signals) generated and sent to the quantum processor, further causes the processor to perform the data processing task (abstract and Claim 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device in order provide additional processing capabilities for enhanced performance.
Claim 16: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a calculator system according to claim 15, comprising: logic configured to transmit the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or information related to the selected calculator (Rigetti: Column 3, Lines 15-34; control signal generated).
Claim 17: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a calculator system according to claim 15, further comprising: a display configured to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or information related to the selected calculator (Kasprowicz: Figures 6-7 and Paragraph 132; development kit with quantum bits selected for execution).
Claim 18: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a calculator system according to claim 17, further comprising: a display configured to display the calculated quantum bit or the quantum volume or the information related to the selected calculator and a character string representing a structural formula or atomic coordinates or a chemical structure or information specifying a compound (Kasprowicz: Figures 6-7 and Paragraph 132; development kit with quantum bits selected for execution and Paragraphs 126-127 and 129; chemistry domain).
Claim 19: Kasprowicz and Rigetti disclose a calculator system according to claim 15, wherein the classical calculator comprises: a first classical calculator configured to perform an operation of the calculation logic, and a second classical calculator connected to the first classical calculator via a network and configured to perform operations of the sorter and the transmitter(Kasprowicz: Paragraph 46-48; identify portions (divisions) for performing processes (classical calculator)).
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
(Kasprowicz: Paragraph 105 and 242; provides structure for calculating, sorting and transmitting).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
20210350265 A1
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
4-16-2026
Prosecution Insights