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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2022, and 10/04/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements mentioned above are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(o) because figures 1-5 lack suitable descriptive legends. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 appears to contain a grammatical error and should be changed to: “each vertex is linked to at least another vertex”.
Claim 7 appears to contain a grammatical error and should be changed to: “each variational function being associated with a different vertex of the graph”.
Claim 8 appears to contain a grammatical error and should be changed to: “with a vertex of the graph is given by”. Claim 8 further appears to contain an additional grammatical error and should be changed to: “affected to the associated vertex Ve”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements”. It is unclear what is meant by this term. In the context of the sentence it is used in, the word “functioning”, seemingly is used as a noun, a thing, that is relative to a set of elements, however the word “functioning” is a verb of an action being done to the relative set of elements. For these reasons, it is unclear what is meant by “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title is objected to because the title recites “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements”. It is unclear what is meant by this term. In the context of the sentence it is used in, the word “functioning”, seemingly is used as a noun, a thing, that is relative to a set of elements, however the word “functioning” is a verb of an action being done to the relative set of elements. For these reasons, it is unclear what is meant by “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements.” A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following reasons. The specification is objected to because the abstract recites “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements”. It is unclear what is meant by this term. In the context of the sentence it is used in, the word “functioning”, seemingly is used as a noun, a thing, that is relative to a set of elements, however the word “functioning” is a verb of an action being done to the relative set of elements. For those reasons, it is unclear what is meant by “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations of: “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements” and “optimizing a functioning relative to the set of elements”. It is unclear what is meant by this term. In the context of the sentence it is used in, the word “functioning”, seemingly is used as a noun, a thing, that is relative to a set of elements, however the word “functioning” is a verb of an action being done to the relative set of elements. For these reasons, it is unclear what is meant by “optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements”.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation of “the determined partition being obtained with the value of the or each variational parameter corresponding to the maximum cut number”. It is unclear what is meant by “value of the or each variational parameter”. The way the sentence is written, there seemingly is a missing word after “or”, the seemingly missing word would be what the value is derived from, and what the alternative limitation hinges on, “value of the or each variational parameter”. It is unclear what the value here is derived from.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation of “the partition implying cutting at least an edge of the graph”. The term “implying” renders the bounds of the claim unclear, as it is not clear the scope of what implying is.
Claims 2-14 inherit the same deficiencies as claim 1 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation of “input data comprise the or each variational parameter”. It is unclear what is meant by “input data comprise the or each variational parameter”. The way the sentence is written, there seemingly is a missing word after “or”, the seemingly missing word would be what the input data comprises, and what the alternative limitation hinges on, “input data comprise the or each variational parameter”. It is unclear from this limitation what the input value here is comprises, thus making it unclear what the first part of the alternative limitation is.
Claims 3-6 inherit the same deficiency as claim 2 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation of: “elements depends on the or each variational parameter”. It is unclear what is meant by “elements depends on the or each variational parameter”. The way the sentence is written, there seemingly is a missing word after “or”, the seemingly missing word would be what the elements depends on, and what the alternative limitation hinges on, “elements depends on the or each variational parameter”. It is unclear what the elements depend on here thus making it unclear what the first part of the alternative limitation is.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 2”. Claim 6 is seemingly dependent on claim 2, and claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 with claim 2 reciting the limitation of: “The method according to claim 1”. Claim 2’s limitation recites that it is the same method according to claim 1, whereas claim 6 is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 2 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 2. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 6 to mean that it is the method according to claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 1”. Claim 7 is seemingly dependent on claim 1, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 1 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 1. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 7 to mean that it is the method according to claim 1.
Claim 8 inherits the same deficiency as claim 7 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 7”. Claim 8 is seemingly dependent on claim 7, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 7 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 7. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 8 to mean that it is the method according to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, claim 9 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 1”. Claim 9 is seemingly dependent on claim 1, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 1 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 1. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 9 to mean that it is the method according to claim 1.
Claims 10-13 inherit the same deficiency as claim 9 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 9”. Claim 10 is seemingly dependent on claim 9, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 9 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 9. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 10 to mean that it is the method according to claim 9.
Claim 11 inherits the same deficiency as claim 10 based on dependence.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation of: “the functioning relative to the set of elements”, and “efficiency of the functioning being optimized”. It is unclear what is meant by these terms. In the context of the sentences it is used in, the word “functioning”, seemingly is used as a noun, a thing, that is relative to a set of elements, however the word “functioning” is a verb of an action being done to the relative set of elements in the first limitation and, a verb of some sort of functioning being optimized in the second limitation. For these reasons, it is unclear what is meant by “the functioning relative to the set of elements”, and “efficiency of the functioning being optimized”.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 10”. Claim 11 is seemingly dependent on claim 10, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 10 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 10. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 11 to mean that it is the method according to claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation of: “the property between each of two elements of the set of elements being the existence or not of a direct communication linking an infected device and a non-infected device”. Claim 12 seemingly does not specify whether or not the two elements of the limitation are the same two elements of claim 9. If it were to do so it would be written as: “the property between each of the two elements of the set”, thus it is unclear if the two elements of claim 12 are supposed to be the same two elements as discussed in claim 9 or an entirely different two elements. Furthermore, claim 12 is dependent on claim 9, and claim 9 recites the limitation of: “property between each of two elements of the set of elements is: the existence or not of a connection between the two elements, such as a physical connection or a wireless connection, or a distance separating the two elements, or a level of dangerousness of infecting one or both the elements with a virus”, and the limitation of claim 12 is: “property between each of two elements of the set of elements being the existence or not of a direct communication linking an infected device and a non-infected device”. While claim 12’s limitation is somewhat similar to claim 9, it is different. Claim 9 recites an alternative type limitation with the property between the two elements are either “the existence or not of a connection between the two elements”, or, “a level of dangerousness of infecting one or both the elements with a virus”, whereas claim 12 seemingly combines the two from the alternative type limitation into a singular limitation which is not mentioned in claim 9, “the property between each of two elements of the set of elements being the existence or not of a direct communication linking an infected device and a non-infected device”. Furthermore, claim 12 refers to this as “the property”, not “a property”, which implies that the property is a property previously described, however, as shown, there is no prior property which is described to be both the existence or not of a direct communication of elements and it being a linking of an infected device with a non-infected device. For these reasons, it is unclear if the property mentioned in claim 12 is meant to be understood as replacing the property discussed in claim 9 or somehow is supposed to be an additional property between elements alongside the property described in claim 9.
Furthermore, claim 12 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 9”. Claim 12 is seemingly dependent on claim 9, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 9 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 9. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 12 to mean that it is the method according to claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the limitation of: “A method according to claim 9”. Claim 13 is seemingly dependent on claim 9, however, it is unclear whether this is the same method according to claim 9 or a separate method that also aligns, but is different, with claim 9. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation of claim 13 to mean that it is the method according to claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the limitation of: “a method according to claim 1”. Claim 14 seemingly is claiming a system to carry out the method according to claim 1, however, the limitation of “a method according to claim 1” makes it unclear if the method to be carried out in claim 14 is referring to the same method of claim 1 or if it is meant to be another method entirely that is also a method aligning with claim 1. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that it is the method according to claim 1.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method for optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements, each element of the set having a property relative to each other element of the set, the method comprising the following phases: obtaining a graph comprising vertices and edges, the edges linking the vertices to one another so that each vertice is linked to at least another vertice, the vertices representing the elements of the set of elements, the edges representing the properties between the elements of the set of elements, determining a partition of the vertices of the graph between two separate subsets so as to fulfill a partition criterion, the partition implying cutting at least an edge of the graph, the partition criterion stating that a cut number relative to the cut of the edges of the graph to obtain the partition is maximum, the determining phase adapted to carry out quantum operations on qubits, the determining phase comprising the following steps: obtaining a Laplacian matrix corresponding to the graph, transforming the Laplacian matrix of the graph by using Pauli matrices to obtain a transformed Laplacian, setting a random value for at least one variational parameter, the value of the or each variational parameter enabling to define a partition of the vertices of the graph between the two separate subsets, determining the cut number for the partition corresponding to the set variational parameter(s) on the basis of the transformed Laplacian, and repeating the setting step and the determining step until the cut number is maximal so as to fulfill the partition criterion, the determined partition being obtained with the value of the or each variational parameter corresponding to the maximum cut number, and optimizing a functioning relative to the set of elements by separating the elements of the set of elements between two separate subsets on the basis of the determined partition.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 1 recites additional element of, “quantum computer”. In the applicant’s specification, [0024], the applicant’s specification recites: “the quantum computer could be represented as entity comprising a processor comprising a data processing unit, memories, a reader for information media, and optionally a human machine interface”. The components of a processor comprising a data processing unit, memories, a reader for information media and optionally a human machine interference, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be interpreted as a classical computer upon which a simulation of a quantum computer/algorithm is applied, or works in conjunction with a quantum computer. Thus the recited quantum computer, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) Furthermore, The additional element is merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d), employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, such as in quantum computing/quantum algorithms, does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(h). For these reasons, claim 1 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“The method according to claim 1, wherein the cut number is determined on the basis of the output of a partition function whose input data comprise the or each variational parameter, the partition function depending on the number of vertices of the graph and on the number of qubits enabling to carry out the method.”
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 3 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 2. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 3 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“The method according to claim 2, wherein the partition function comprises a multi- qubit diagonal quantum gate whose elements depends on the or each variational parameter.”
The Examiner notes that quantum gates are considered instructions rather than hardware, and thus would not be considered an additional element and would instead merely be part of the mathematical formulas, see (The greatest challenges for quantum computing are hardware and algorithms | by Jack Krupansky | medium. (2018, August). https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/the-greatest-challenges-for-quantum-computing-are-hardware-and-algorithms-c61061fa1210). Thus, claim 3 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 4 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 2. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 4 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“The method according to claim 2, wherein the partition function is expressed as follows:
U = diag(ei[Symbol font/0x70]A1, ei[Symbol font/0x70]A2, …, ei[Symbol font/0x70]A|v|-1, 1, … , 1)H1[Symbol font/0xC4]H2[Symbol font/0xC4]…[Symbol font/0xC4]Hn
Where:
U is the partition function, (A1,…,A|v|-1) are either variational parameters or variational functions depending on at least one variational parameter,
Diag([Symbol font/0x71]1,…, [Symbol font/0x71]|V|-1) is a multi-qubit diagonal quantum gate applied to [Symbol font/0x71]1,…, [Symbol font/0x71]|V|-1, eiX=cos(X) + i.sin(X),
|V| is the number of vertices of the graph,
n is the number of qubits enabling to carry out the method,
Hj is a single qubit Haddamard gate applied to the qubit j, and [Symbol font/0xC4] is a tensor product.”
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 5 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“The method according to claim 2, wherein the cut number is given by the following formula:
Ncuts = 2n-2<0|UL’U|0>
Where:
Ncuts is the cut number,
N is the number of qubits of the quantum computer enabling to carry out the method,
U is the partition function,
L’ is the transformed Laplacian of the graph, and
<[Symbol font/0x46]| is the bra of [Symbol font/0x46] in a bra-ket notation, and
|[Symbol font/0x59]> is the ket of [Symbol font/0x59] in a bra-ket notation.”
Claim 5 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 2. Claim 6 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 2. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 2, wherein the number of qubits enabling to carry out the method is given by the following formula:
N=ceil(log2|V|)
Where:
N is the number of qubits enabling to carry out the method,
|V| is the number of vertices of the graph,
Ceil(X) is equal to the least integer greater than or equal to X, and
log2(X) is the binary logarithm of X.”
Claim 6 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 7 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 7 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 7 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the method involved only one variational parameter enabling to compute the output of variational functions, the number of variational functions depends on the number of vertices, each variational function being associated with a different vertice of the graph, the outputs of the variational functions enabling to define a partition of the vertices of the graph between two separate subsets.”
Claim 7 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 8 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 7. Claim 8 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 7. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 8 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 7, wherein each variational function associated with a vertice of the graph is given by the following formula:
Rf(x,k,m) = exp(-exp(2m-ksin(2kx)+x0(k)))
Where:
Rf is the variational function,
x is a variational parameter comprised between 0 and [Symbol font/0x70],
m is a parameter which is superior or equal to |V|+1,
m is for example fixed by a user,
k corresponds to the number affected to the associated vertice Ve,
k being comprised between 1 and |V|-1,
|V| is the number of vertices Ve of the graph G, exp(X) is the exponential of X, and
x0(k) = arcsin(
(
l
o
g
2
-
l
o
g
2
(
0,5
)
)
2
k
).”
Claim 8 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 9 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 9 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 9 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the property between each of two elements of the set of elements is: the existence or not of a connection between the two elements.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 9 recites additional elements of, “physical connection or wireless connection”, “distance separating the two elements”, and “level of dangerousness of infecting one or both the elements with a virus”. The additional elements seemingly are merely different forms of data for use within a generic computer system to calculate mathematical formulas. There is seemingly no specific instruction as to how this data is formed, received, or found, so a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that the data is received over a network, which is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, claim 9 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claim 10 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 9. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 9, wherein the property between each of two elements of the set of elements, the edges of the graph linking all the vertices of the graph to one another, each edge being associated with a weight depending on corresponding to the vertices linked by said edge, the cut number for each partition being equal to the sum of the weights of the edges cut to obtain the partition.”
Claim 10 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 11 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 10. Claim 11 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 10. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 11 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 10, wherein the elements are exchange, the functioning relative to the set of elements comprises the determination of paths through all the elements of the set of elements, the efficiency of the functioning being optimized by determining separate paths for the elements belonging to separate subsets.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 11 recites additional element of, “locations of goods or services”. The additional element seemingly is merely forms of data for use within a generic computer system to calculate mathematical formulas. There is seemingly no specific instruction as to how this data is formed/found, a broadest reasonable interpretation may be that the data is received over a network, which his considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, claim 11 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claim 12 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 9. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 12 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 12 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 9, wherein the elements of the set, each of the set, at least one element of the set being, the property between each of two elements of the set of elements, the cut number for each partition being equal to the number of edges to be cut to obtain the partition.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 12 recites additional elements of, “electronic devices”, “device being directly or indirectly in communication with the other devices”, “infected with a virus”, and “existence or not of a direct communication linking an infected device and a non-infected device”. The additional elements of “device being directly or indirectly in communication with the other devices” and “existence or not of a direct communication linking an infected device and a non-infected device” seemingly describes data received/transmitted over a network, which his considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The additional elements of “electronic devices”, and “infected with a virus” are merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv). For the For these reasons, claim 12 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 9. Claim 13 merely further limits the mental process and mathematical concept set forth in claim 9. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 13 recites an abstract idea, mathematical formulas. Specifically, claim 13 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“A method according to claim 9, wherein the elements of the set, the property between each of two elements of the set of elements, each edge being associated with a weight depending on the level of dangerousness between the two elements corresponding to the vertices linked by said edge, the cut number for each partition being equal to the sum of the weights of the edges cut to obtain the partition.”
Claim 13 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Regarding claim 14, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 14 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 14 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 14 recites the following mathematical formulas:
“causing a method according to claim 1 to be carried out.”
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 1 recites additional element of, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program able to be loaded onto a data processing unit”. The recited non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program able to be loaded onto a data processing unit, is merely a generic computer upon which the abstract idea is applied, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). For these reasons, claim 1 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims a method for optimizing a functioning relative to a set of elements, the method comprising:
each element of the set having a property relative to each other element of the set, the method comprising the following phases: obtaining a graph comprising vertices and edges, the edges linking the vertices to one another so that each vertice is linked to at least another vertice, the vertices representing the elements of the set of elements, the edges representing the properties between the elements of the set of elements, determining a partition of the vertices of the graph between two separate subsets so as to fulfill a partition criterion, the partition implying cutting at least an edge of the graph, the partition criterion stating that a cut number relative to the cut of the edges of the graph to obtain the partition is maximum, the determining phase being implemented by a quantum computer adapted to carry out quantum operations on qubits, the determining phase comprising the following steps: obtaining a Laplacian matrix corresponding to the graph, transforming the Laplacian matrix of the graph by using Pauli matrices to obtain a transformed Laplacian, setting a random value for at least one variational parameter, the value of the or each variational parameter enabling to define a partition of the vertices of the graph between the two separate subsets, determining the cut number for the partition corresponding to the set variational parameter(s) on the basis of the transformed Laplacian, and repeating the setting step and the determining step until the cut number is maximal so as to fulfill the partition criterion, the determined partition being obtained with the value of the or each variational parameter corresponding to the maximum cut number, and optimizing a functioning relative to the set of elements by separating the elements of the set of elements between two separate subsets on the basis of the determined partition.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Crooks, (Crooks, G. E. (2018, November 20). Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08419), hereinafter, “Crooks”, discloses QAOA (Quantum approximate optimization algorithms), a method to solve a MaxCut problem for finding a subset (partition) of vertices and edges in a graph for optimizing a graph, use of a quantum computer for graph optimization, and Pauli matrices. However, Crooks fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Guerreschi, (Guerreschi, G. G., & Matsuura, A. Y. (2019, May 6). Qaoa for Max-cut requires hundreds of qubits for quantum speed-up. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43176-9), hereinafter “Guerreschi” discloses QAOA (Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms), use of a quantum computer to solve a max-cut problem. However, Guerreschi fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Kwon et al. (KR 102219374), hereinafter “Kwon”, discloses use of qubits and a quantum computer use in solving the traveling salesman problem, however, Kwon seemingly fails to teach or suggest a MaxCut optimization, and the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am - 3:30pm.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights