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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 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, “corresponding quantum circuit definitions” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the corresponding quantum circuit definitions of the web server are a part of or are related to the quantum circuit definitions of the deployment service.
Regarding claim 1, “a container” as claimed as a part of the web server renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is a part of, one of, or related to the container(s) of the deployment service.
Regarding claim 1, in the web server section, the recitations of “a quantum circuit definition” and “a given quantum circuit” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “quantum circuit definition” of the web server is related to the “given quantum circuit definition” of the deployment section, and similarly for “given quantum circuit” and “quantum circuit”.
Claims 2-5 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 11-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faulhaber (US20190155633A1) in view of Bishop (US20190102220A1).
Regarding claim 6, Faulhaber teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a deployment service, a deployment request for executing an object to be implemented using a container corresponding to an object definition for the object, wherein the object definition is one of a plurality of object definitions maintained by the deployment service, wherein the deployment request is received from a web service that is configured to perform jobs for consumers, and wherein the jobs of the consumers use one or more of the published objects (¶57 – A user submits a deployment request to a model hosting system and the request can include the identification of a model to be used. An identified container is initialized for the model which corresponds to a definition of the model (its identification). See ¶58-59 and ¶123, where multiple models are provided, i.e. multiple definitions are maintained by the deployment service. The request can be considered from a web service because it is received through a network, see ¶179);
generating the container for implementing execution of the object having the object definition (¶57 – A user submits a deployment request to a model hosting system and the request can include the identification of a model to be used. An identified container is initialized for the model which corresponds to a definition of the model (its identification), wherein the container is selected from a container repository storing a plurality of containers corresponding to a plurality of object definitions (Figure 1: 150);
configuring an application in the container for executing a job using the object having the object definition, wherein the container provides an isolated compute environment for the application that is isolated from other applications executing on a host machine hosting the container (¶62-63, the containers execute the models, i.e. an application is configured which executes the model within the container and the execution is of a job having the model definition. The container is considered isolated because it is a container separate from other containers and/or components);
providing access to results of the execution of the job using the object (¶64).
As shown above, Faulhaber discloses all of the components of claim 6 with the exception that in claim 6 the “object” is a quantum circuit, the definition a “quantum circuit definition”, and the application a “quantum application”.
It is known in the art to provide quantum computing resources to users on a cloud-based computing architecture, see Bishop, e.g. Figure 5.
MPEP 2141 and 2143 discuss how a prima facie case of obviousness is made and various rationales which support rejections under 35 USC 103. In the instant case, reference is made to rationale (F) in §2143. To reject a claim based on rationale (F), Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries (see above). Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
a finding that the scope and content of the prior art, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, included a similar or analogous device (method, or product)
This can be seen in Faulhaber. Faulhaber discloses a similar or analogous device to the claimed invention in the form of a cloud computing architecture which provides access to machine learning models. As noted above, the claim differs in the instead of machine learning models, quantum circuits and applications are offered.
a finding that there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product)
This can be seen from Bishop. Bishop shows that there are design incentives to provide access to quantum circuits, applications, and/or hardware over could-based architecture in order to provide access to quantum computing resources which are out of reach to most consumers in terms of direct access to a quantum computer.
a finding that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art
The differences between the claimed invention and Faulhaber are noted above and Bishop (see at least ¶7-8) also recognizes these differences.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
One of ordinary skill in the art could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art because the claimed variation is a high-level, general application of cloud computing to quantum computing. There are no specifics as to any quantum computer architectures, algorithms, or problems of which one of ordinary skill in the art would have to work with in any difficult or unexpected manner in order to implement the claimed variation. The claimed variation is only particular to quantum computing in the sense that it is quantum computing resources that are offered to a user over a web-based, interactive cloud architecture and the claimed variation would merely involve the provision of one service (quantum computing) over a different service (machine learning).
whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Citations to Faulhaber and Bishop can be seen above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faulhaber to provide access to quantum computing resources rather than or in addition to machine learning resources, thereby providing for the execution of a quantum circuit in the container corresponding to a quantum circuit definition (rather than a machine learning model corresponding to a machine learning model definition) and providing a quantum application in the container (rather than a machine learning application in the container) in order to provide easy access to quantum computing resources. Such a modification would render the deployment service as a “published quantum circuit deployment service”.
Regarding claim 11, Faulhaber as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, further comprising
storing the container to the container repository (¶57, Figure 1: 150).
Regarding claim 12, Faulhaber as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, further comprising
causing an identifier of the container to be used to retrieve the container from the container repository (¶61, each container can be associated with a network address), wherein the retrieved container is used by a quantum computing service configured to execute the job using the quantum circuit (see rejection of claim 6, where Faulhaber as modified retrieves a container to execute the job with a quantum circuit).
Regarding claim 13, Faulhaber as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, further comprising:
mapping the container to a uniform resource identifier (¶61), and
sending, to the web server, an indication of the uniform resource identifier for the container (¶61).
Regarding claims 14 and 18-20, Faulhaber as modified according to claims 6 and 11-13 similarly teaches claims 14 and 18-20.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not anticipate or render obvious the system containing the deployment service and web server as claimed in claim 1. While the general architecture is known (see rejection of claim 6), claim 1 contains particulars with regard to the web server that would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, e.g. the mappings.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 15-17 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.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1.
Claims 7-10 and 15-17 provide particulars which are not obvious from the combination of Faulhaber and Bishop.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights