DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 01/06/2026
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11 dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following:
Claim 1 recites “executes…in a single shot”. Support for the amended language of the claim is requested. Similar deficiency exist in claim 11.
Claim 9 recites “quantum job in the final quantum job is positioned at the front of the job queue”. Support for the amended language in the claim is requested. Similar deficiency exist in claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “slicing…in a single shot”. It is unclear if the single shot is referring to the concurrency or entire job is performed in one shot. Applicant is also requested to indicate support for the amendments of “single shot” in the specification.
Claim 10 recites “other quantum jobs not in the final quantum job are ahead of the other jobs in the queue”. It is unclear “other” is referring to the jobs not in the final quantum job and other jobs not in queue meaning same other jobs or different other jobs not in the final quantum job (i.e. claim appears to recites other jobs being two different categories and both category is referring to same category of jobs not in the final quantum of jobs).
Claims 11 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US 2024/0378085 A1, hereafter Ravi) in view of Yao et al. (CN-113010302-A, hereafter Yao), and further in view of Mark et al. (WO-2022232604-A1, hereafter Mark ), and further in view of Hahm et al. (US 2018/0121601 A1, hereafter Hahm).
Ravi and Yao were cited in the last office action.
As per claim 1, Ravi teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method, comprising:
receiving quantum jobs in a job queue ([0035] fig. 1 jobs 122 to be added to the job queue, target, quantum computing device [0009] receive, from a client device, a request for execution of a quantum program), wherein the quantum jobs are configured to be run on a quantum processing unit ([0035] fig. 1 jobs 122 to be added to the job queue 120 that can target any or all of those quantum computing devices 132 for execution);
identifying at least a first quantum job of a first user in the job queue and a second quantum job (fig. 1 job queue 120 jobs 122 job P i.e. first job, job Q i.e. second job [0029] job request 140, quantum programs [0019] users, select target quantum computing device, user’s job is submitted to the selected target devices), which is added to the job queue after the first quantum job, of a second user ([0028] job requests from 140 from requesting devices 144 such as public client devices 144A private client devices 144B e.g. enterprise / private network [0029] job request 140, quantum programs [0019] users, select target quantum computing device, user’s job is submitted to the selected target devices [0048] ordering of jobs, influenced by the user) for concurrent execution on the quantum processing unit for concurrent execution from the first and second users ([0048] some jobs 122, batch jobs, multiple quantum circuits are grouped together, ordering of jobs 122 on the job queue 120, influenced by the user, circuits within a batched job are treated as a single job 122 [0078] batching of multiple circuits into a single quantum job, multi-threading, independent circuits from one problem or multiple problems can be executing in conjunction [0080] multi-programing, computing devices, executing two or more smaller quantum circuits in conjunction on a larger quantum device 132);
merging a first quantum circuit in the first quantum job with a second quantum circuit in the second quantum job into a final quantum job ([0009] updated quantum circuit [0021] optimizations to the quantum circuits, jobs, queued up waiting execution, [0022] optimizations, inter-job optimization e.g. multiple jobs, performed between jobs, ability to add i.e. merge or modify subsequent jobs [0024] batched jobs [0032] quantum optimization processes, optimization process is performed, related set of jobs, update the associated jobs e.g. updated layout selection, routine or schedule for a quantum application [0048] batched jobs, multiple quantum circuits are grouped together [0078] batching of multiple circuits into a single quantum jobs [0063] complex requests, include multiple jobs, optimization performed between jobs [0078] batching of multiple circuits into a single quantum job, multi-threading, independent circuits from one problem or multiple problems can be executing in conjunction [0080] multi-programing, computing devices, executing two or more smaller quantum circuits in conjunction on a larger quantum device 132);
wherein each sub-quantum processing unit concurrently executes a respective quantum circuit in the final quantum job ([0078] batching of multiple circuits into a single quantum job, multi-threading, independent circuits from one problem or multiple problems can be executing in conjunction [0080] multi-programing, computing devices, executing two or more smaller quantum circuits in conjunction on a larger quantum device 132 [0034] execution of quantum jobs, execute compute job on the quantum computing device 132 [0035] given job, specify, assigned to, execute on any of the multiple quantum computing device [0048] batched jobs, treated as single job, executed [0049] complex requests, require multiple jobs to complete the request [0009] updated quantum circuit, executed, first computing device [0111] fig. 3 compute job 202 premium quantum computing device 132);
returning results of the final quantum job ([0034] receive execution results directly from the quantum computing device [0009] execution result from execution of the updated quantum circuit); and
the results into first results associated with the first quantum job and second results associated with the second quantum job ([0009] receive, from the quantum computing device, execution results from the execution of the updated quantum circuit, transmit the execution results to the client device [0030] requesting devices 144 can submit job requests 140 and receive job results (or just “results”) 142 in response i.e. different clients request/result [0031] analyzing outputs returned from execution of jobs [0047] transmit results 142 of the request back to requesting client 144; Results 142, include, distribution of the different output bitstrings of the circuit [0028] job requests 140 from requesting devices 144, public/private client [0067] post-processing the execution results 222).
Ravi doesn’t specifically teach permissions for concurrent execution from the first and second users; slicing the quantum processing unit into a plurality of sub-quantum processing units; concurrently executes a respective quantum circuit in the final quantum job in a single shot; separating the results.
Yao, however, teaches permissions for concurrent execution from the first and second users (page 2 last paragraph: server, end combines, transmitted each user task, multiple task, run at the same time on the quantum computer i.e. have to have permission for concurrent execution without which task from different users can’t be run at the same time);
concurrently executes a respective quantum circuit in the final quantum job (page 2 last paragraph: server, end combines, transmitted each user task, multiple task, run at the same time on the quantum computer);
separating the result into result associated with respective jobs (page 3 paragraph 2: the server end splits the feedback execution result and feeds it back to each user; fig. 3 paragraph 8: disassembling the execution result, obtain the result of each user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Ravi with the teachings of Yao of combining each user task to run multiple task at the same time, splits the execution result and feeds it back to each user to improve efficiency and allow concurrent execution of the tasks from the first and second users, concurrently executes a respective quantum circuit in the final quantum job, separating the result for different jobs /client to the method of Ravi as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because supplementing the batched quantum job and/or complex quantum job processing as taught by Ravi with concurrent execution of tasks from different users and separating the result for respective user / jobs to yield predictable results of concurrent execution and splitting results for respective jobs and improved efficiency.
Ravi and Yao, in combination, do not specifically teach slicing the quantum processing unit into a plurality of sub-quantum processing units; executes a quantum circuit in the final quantum job in a single shot.
Mark, however, slicing the quantum processing unit into a plurality of sub-quantum processing units concurrently executes a respective quantum circuit in the final quantum job in a single shot ([0010] one or more quantum processing units can be segmented into multiple QPU sublattices, which can be simultaneously controlled [0137] same operations can be performed in parallel on multiple QPU sublattices from the same quantum processing unit or from different quantum processing units; [0057] each shot, produce a bitstring, for a single execution of the quantum program).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Ravi and Yao with the teachings of Mark of segmenting one or more quantum processing unit into multiple sublattices, which can be simultaneously controlled such that same operations can be performed in parallel on multiple sublattices producing bitstring by executing the program in each shot to improve efficiency and allow slicing the quantum processing unit into a plurality of sub-quantum processing units concurrently executes a respective quantum circuit in the final quantum job in a single shot to the method of Ravi and Yao as in the instant invention.
The combination of cited analogous prior arts would have been obvious because applying the known method of segmenting the processing units and producing the bitstring by executing the program in each shot in parallel on different sublattices as taught by Mark to yield predictable results and with improved efficiency.
Ravi, Yao, and Mark in combination, do not specifically teach permission for concurrent execution.
Hahm, however, teaches concurrent execution based on permissions for concurrent execution from the first and second users ([0892] users, allowing, flexibility, serial / parallel processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Ravi, Yao and Mark with the teachings of Hahm of allowing the flexibility for parallel processing by the users to improve security and allow concurrent execution based on permissions for concurrent execution from the first and second users to the method of Ravi, Yao and Mark as in the instant invention.
The combination of cited analogous prior arts would have been obvious because applying the known method of parallel processing based on flexibility allowed by the users as taught by Ham to yield predictable results and with improved security and efficiency.
As per claim 2, Ravi teaches the first quantum circuit requires a first number (x) qubits ([0048] job, circuit, quantum computing device, list of instructions, number of qubits [0050] mapping logical qubits of a quantum application to the optimal physical qubits of the quantum computing device [0080] number of qubits required by each circuit [0090] the request 140 (e.g., the number of required qubits to execute the circuit(s) 502), the second quantum circuit requires a second number y of qubits ([0048] job, circuit, quantum computing device, list of instructions, number of qubits [0050] mapping logical qubits of a quantum application to the optimal physical qubits of the quantum computing device [0080] number of qubits required by each circuit [0090] the request 140 (e.g., the number of required qubits to execute the circuit(s) 502),
Yao teaches the remaining claim elements of the quantum processing unit includes at least x+y qbits, where x and y are integer numbers greater than or equal to 1 (page 5 last paragraph: judging, whether quantum bit numbers, task, combined, exceeds the total bit number of the quantum chip, combined task cannot be finished).
As per claim 3, Ravi teaches wherein the first quantum job is assigned a first group of qubits of the quantum processing unit including qubits 1 to a first number x and wherein the second quantum job is assigned a second group of qubits including qubits from qubit x+1 to qubit x+ a second number (y),where x and y are integer numbers greater than or equal to 1 ([0048] job, circuit, quantum computing device, list of instructions, number of qubits [0050] mapping logical qubits of a quantum application to the optimal physical qubits of the quantum computing device [0080] number of qubits required by each circuit [0090] the request 140 (e.g., the number of required qubits to execute the circuit(s) 502; [0051] mapping the ith virtual qubit to the ith physical qubit).
As per claim 4, Ravi teaches wherein the first quantum job is independent of and does not entangle with the second quantum job ([0048] some jobs may be completely independent of each other e.g. belonging to different quantum problems).
As per claim 5, Ravi teaches wherein a number of shots associated with the first quantum job is less than a number of shots associated with the second quantum job ([0024] task, single/batch of circuits, each circuit, re-executed, for a particular number of shots i.e. different task, different number of circuits and different number of shots [0048] ach circuit in a given job 122 may be re-executed a specified number of times (“shots”) ).
As per claim 6, Ravi teaches number of shots of the final quantum job equal to the number of shots associated with the second quantum job ([0024] task, single/batch of circuits, each circuit, re-executed, for a particular number of shots i.e. different task, different number of circuits and different number of shots [0048] ach circuit in a given job 122 may be re-executed a specified number of times (“shots”) ; job with large number of shots need to be processed and would require at least larger number of shots required among the one of the two job).
As per claim 7, Ravi teaches providing the first results to the first user and providing the second results to the second user ([0009] receive, execution results, transmit the execution results to the client device [0030] [0031] analyzing outputs returned from execution of jobs [0047] transmit results 142 of the request back to requesting client 144; Results 142, include, distribution of the different output bitstrings of the circuit [0028] job requests 140 from requesting devices 144, public/private client [0067] post-processing the execution results 222).
As per claim 8, Ravi teaches identifying a plurality of jobs for concurrent execution as long as a total number of qubits required by the plurality of jobs is less than or equal to a number of qubits provided by the quantum processing unit ([0080] multiprogramming for quantum computing devise, executing two or more smaller quantum circuits in conjunction on a larger quantum device, number of parallel executions is dependent on the number of qubits required by each circuit, the number of qubits in the device 132).
Yao teaches the remaining claim elements of total number of the qubits is less than or equal to the number of qubits provided by the quantum processing unit (page 5 last paragraph: judging, whether quantum bit numbers, task, combined, exceeds the total bit number of the quantum chip, combined task cannot be finished).
As per claim 9, Ravi teaches wherein a quantum job in the final quantum job is positioned at a front of the job queue ([0056] different independent job ahead of another job [0024] batched job treated as a single task [0048] jobs 122 in which multiple quantum circuits are grouped together; [0049] simple request, complex request fig. 4 job queue 120 ).
Claim 11 recites non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites elements similar to claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites elements similar to claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi in view of Yao, and further in view of Mark and further in view of Hahm, and further in view of Heckey et al. (US 2023/0110628 A1, hereafter Heckey).
As per claim 10, Ravi teaches wherein other jobs included in the final quantum job are executed first even though other quantum jobs not in the final quantum job are ahead of the other jobs in the job queue ([0056] different independent job ahead of another job [0024] batched job treated as a single task [0048] jobs 122 in which multiple quantum circuits are grouped together; [0049] simple request, complex request fig. 4 job queue 120 ).
Ravi, Yao, Mark and Hahm, in combination do not specifically teach final quantum job executed first even though other jobs are ahead in the job queue.
Heckey, however, teaches final quantum job executed first even though other jobs are ahead in the job queue ([0105] priority access control plane, assign, priorities, quantum task, based on, job type task or solo task type and/or based on relative priorities between jobs, QoS guarantees ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Ravi, Yao, Mark and Ham with the teachings of Heckey of assigning priorities to the task based on type of task and associated QoS to improve efficiency and allow final quantum job executed first even though other jobs are ahead in the job queue to the method of Ravi, Yao, Mark and Hahm as in the instant invention.
The combination of cited analogous prior arts would have been obvious because applying the known method of prioritizing the task based on task type of job type or solo type as taught by Heckey to yield predictable results of executing the final task before other task ahead in the queue for improved efficiency.
Claim 20 recites elements similar to claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the 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 all of the references in 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.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, new claim objections have been made.
The previous specification objections have been withdrawn.
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The previous 35 USC 112(b) objections have been withdrawn. However, some new objections have been made.
The previous 35 USC 101 objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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 Lee can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights