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 .
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 10/11/2022.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun; Firat.
This action is made Non-Final.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been electronically retrieved in the instant application.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 & 15:
Step 1: the claims are drawn to a method and system respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial expception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1.A qubit processing method, comprising:
determining a plurality of parts comprised in a qubit;
determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts by using integral equations, to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts, wherein the integral equations respectively use a Green's function to represent the electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts; and
performing summation on the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process:
This is considered a mental step as it identified (evaluation/judgement) plurality of parts based on the observation of qubit implementation. (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The determining step recites mathematical relationships (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)), mathematical formula/equations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B); statement of Green’s function), mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), determination of electromagnetic parameters based on computation of equations).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The performing summation step recites mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), determination of electromagnetic parameters based on summation of previously computed result).
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Further in view of claims 8 (a system claim) and claim 15 (an article of manufacture claim), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (such as processor and memory). Here, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
The claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 8 and 15 disclose additional elements of generic computer components and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer/processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims 1, 8 & 15 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2-7 further recite limitations confined to further defining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mathematical qubit computation based on simulation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. MPEP 2106.05(g) & (h). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 9-13 parallel claims 2-6 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 14 parallels claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 16-20 parallel claims 2-6 and are rejected for the same reason.
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 6, 13 and 20 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the meshes obtained through subdivision are triangular meshes, and triangular meshes obtained through subdivision by using the uniform refinement method have a same aspect ratio; and for triangular meshes obtained through subdivision by using the boundary refinement method, an obtained triangular mesh closer to a boundary of the boundary region is smaller, and the triangular meshes have different aspect ratios.
The terms smaller and different are not quantified and considered as indefinite. E.g. it is not clear mesh is smaller than what in comparison. Or aspect ratio is different than what. Claims 13 and 20 also suffer from similar deficiency and are rejected likewise.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun; Firat.
Regarding Claim 1, 8
Solgun teaches (Claim 1) A qubit processing method (Solgun: Abstract "... Techniques regarding an autonomous surface participation analysis of one or more superconducting qubits using the boundary element method are provided. ..."Fig.6-7) ,
(Claim 8) Solgun teaches An apparatus for performing qubit processing (Solgun: Fig.10 [0102]-[0106]) , the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (Solgun: Fig.10 element 1016 & [0106]) ; and one or more processors (Solgun : Fig.10 element 1014 & [0113]) configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform/comprising:
(Claim 15) A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of an apparatus to cause the apparatus to initiate a method for performing qubit processing (Solgun: Fig.10 & [0102]-[0113], specifically [0106]-[0107]) , the method comprising:
determining a plurality of parts comprised in a qubit (Solgun: Fig.2 [0041]-[0046] [0007]-[0010]) ;
determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts (Solgun: [0045]-[0046]"... the conductor analysis component 112 can discretize the conductor surfaces of the one or more qubit pads 202 into a mesh of one or more conductor panels, for example, comprised within the plurality of meshed panels....") by using integral equations (Solgun: [0057]) , to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts, wherein the integral equations respectively use a Green's function to represent the electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts (Solgun: [0053]-[0057] & Fig.43) ; and performing summation on the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit (Solgun: [0057]-[0062] showing summation of the over plurality of surfaces; e.g. as in [0057] "... Wherein the sum is over the partitioning of the one or more amorphous regions 302 in the dielectric-dielectric interface into mesh panels by the BEM....") .
Regarding Claims 2, 9 & 16
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts by using integral equations, to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts comprises: calculating the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using a Gaussian integration method (Solgun: [0057] shows the Gaussian integration for the Green’s first identity over the volume for electrostatic dielectric analysis1) .
Regarding Claims 3, 10 & 17
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining electromagnetic interaction between the plurality of parts by using integral equations, to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts comprises: respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain a plurality of meshes (Solgun: [0034]"... In one or more embodiments, two-dimensional (“2D”) interfaces between conductor and dielectrics and/or between two dielectrics can be meshed using the BEM to provide a more efficient and/or accurate analysis of a surface participation of one or more superconducting qubits...") ; and calculating electromagnetic parameters of the plurality of meshes by using integral equations, to obtain the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts respectively (Solgun: [0046] – plurality of meshes; [0057] integral and summation) .
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain a plurality of meshes comprises: respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using a mixture of a uniform refinement method (Solgun : [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region [non-boundary regions for uniform refinement method] of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)....") and a boundary refinement method, to obtain the plurality of meshes (Solgun: [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 [boundary regions for boundary refinement with finer meshing]can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)...."; [0043]-[0046][0053]-[0062]).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 & 19
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using a mixture of a uniform refinement method and a boundary refinement method, to obtain the plurality of meshes comprises: respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on non-boundary regions of the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using the uniform refinement method (Solgun : Fig.2 [0044]-[0045]; [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 [boundary regions]can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region [non-boundary regions] of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)....") and respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on boundary regions of the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using the boundary refinement method, to obtain the plurality of meshes (Solgun: [0044]; [0045]"... the mesh of panels need not be uniform within each feature of the superconducting qubit structure 200. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the meshing can be finer at edges and/or corners of the one or more qubit pads 202 and/or the one or more ground planes 204...."; [0046]).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 & 20
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the meshes obtained through subdivision are triangular meshes (Solgun: "... [0044] FIG. 2 depicts magnified portions of the superconducting qubit structure 200 to exemplify a mesh that can be created by the simulation component 108 using the BEM. The cross-hatching in FIG. 2 can define one or more panels meshed using the BEM. Although FIG. 2 shows an exemplary meshing into rectangular panels, the architecture is not so limited. For example, the mesh can define panels of any polygonal shape, such as triangular meshing....") , and triangular meshes obtained through subdivision by using the uniform refinement method have a same aspect ratio (Solgun: [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)...."; Fig.2 meshing shows different aspect ratios as different hatching) ; and for triangular meshes obtained through subdivision by using the boundary refinement method, an obtained triangular mesh closer to a boundary of the boundary region is smaller, and the triangular meshes have different aspect ratios (Solgun: [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)...." ; Fig.2 meshing shows different aspect ratios as different hatching).
Regarding Claims 7 & 14
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic parameter comprises at least one of electric field energy (Solgun: [0065]) and an electric field occupation ratio2 (Solgun: [0055] "... As a result of the meshing and/or partitioning depicted in FIG. 4, contributions of the side panels 406 can cancel each other, thereby the only contribution to the surface participation comes from the surface integral of the electric field on the conductor side panels 408. Advantageously, the dielectric analysis component 114 is able to optimize upon said cancellations to simplify and/or reduce computational requirements...." – cancelled components would contribute to loss of electric field).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to 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 the references in their 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Thursday, February 19, 2026
1 See Wikipedia definition of Green’s function and use of Gaussian integration for electrostatic. See Pg.11 of the attached Wiki for background.
2 See specification ¶[0039] "... an electric field occupation ratio (e.g., a ratio of the electric field energy of the local loss region to the total space energy),..."