DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 16-18, 20-23, and 25-38 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
Claim 16-18, 20-23, and 25-38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
7. Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As analyzed under the current 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; first, the claim is directed to a proper statutory category, a method. Second, under step 2A prong 1, the claim is directed to abstract ideas; specifically mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations that can potentially be performed by pen and paper.
16. A quantum computer-implemented method for solving a partial differential equation for a function f which maps at least a subspace of a k-dimensional real space Rk into at least a subspace of an m-dimensional real space Rm, f: Rk--Rm, f: (t, X)--f(t, X), wherein t € R, X € Rk-1, wherein the partial differential equations representable in the form df/dt = -iQf with a given boundary condition f(t0, X) for some t0 €R, wherein Q is a linear, non-hermitian operator representable as a sum of an anti-hermitian part A and an optional hermitian part Ho, such that the optional hermitian part Ho and the anti-hermitian part A commute, the method comprising the following steps:
i) discretizing X in accordance with a mesh of nQ = 2N points, {Xi}, wherein Xi€R^k-1,
ii) preparing a qubit system comprising N system qubits (qi, ..., qN) and a first ancillary qubit
PNG
media_image1.png
322
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As currently recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations can be interpreted as mathematical concepts and calculations that can potentially be performed by pen and paper.
Next, under step 2A prong 2, are there additional elements or combination of elements that apply or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The additional limitation of “A quantum computer” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., quantum computer) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the computer without reciting specific elements of the machine. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Lastly, under step 2B are there limitations indicative of an inventive concept (i.e. significantly more)? No, the additional limitation does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is not patent eligible.
8. Dependent claims 17-18, 20-23, and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non- statutory for at least the reason stated above, as they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend. The claims depend from claim 1, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite further limitations that abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental steps without reciting any additional limitations that make the claim any less abstract or that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-38 allowed.
Claims 16-18, 20-23, and 25-32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims recite at least “wherein the partial differential equations representable in the form df/dt = -iQf with a given boundary condition f(t0, X) for some t0 €R, wherein Q is a linear, non-hermitian operator representable as a sum of an anti-hermitian part A and an optional hermitian part Ho, such that the optional hermitian part Ho and the anti-hermitian part A commute, the method comprising the following steps:
i) discretizing X in accordance with a mesh of nQ = 2N points, {Xi}, wherein Xi€R^k-1,
ii) preparing a qubit system comprising N system qubits (qi, ..., qN) and a first ancillary qubit…”
The closest prior art of record US Pub. 20170017894 teaches improving the performance of a quantum processor. However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest at least “wherein the partial differential equations representable in the form df/dt = -iQf with a given boundary condition f(t0, X) for some t0 €R, wherein Q is a linear, non-hermitian operator representable as a sum of an anti-hermitian part A and an optional hermitian part Ho, such that the optional hermitian part Ho and the anti-hermitian part A commute, the method comprising the following steps:
i) discretizing X in accordance with a mesh of nQ = 2N points, {Xi}, wherein Xi€R^k-1,
ii) preparing a qubit system comprising N system qubits (qi, ..., qN) and a first ancillary qubit…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. 20190302107 - related to systems and uses of systems operating between fully quantum coherent and fully classical states. Examples include a hybrid quantum-classical computing system comprising a plurality of quantum processors connected via classical means
.
US Pub. 20210150400 – related to system(s) and method(s) that formulate efficient Ising Hamiltonians for integer optimization problem(s) and automate qubit reduction procedure(s) for solving problem(s) using quantum optimization algorithm(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D YAARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571)272-3677. 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.
/MICHAEL D. YAARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights