DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 are currently amended; claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 are original; claims 5, 12 and 19 are canceled.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the specification is not in compliance with C.F.R. 1.121(b)(1)(ii) which requires “The full text of any replacement paragraph with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived”.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.74, which requires the detailed description to refer to the different parts of the figures by use of reference letters or reference numerals. Implicit in this rule is that the detailed description correctly reference the figures. In this application the figures and detailed description are inconsistent as explained below.
A. paragraph [0083] line 7 references a “Resource scheduling system of Fig. 2”, however, Fig. 2 does not include any resource scheduling system.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.71(a) which requires “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same. The following should be corrected.
A. In claim 10 line 3, “[[a an exclusive or result” should read “an exclusive or result” instead for better clarity.
Claim Interpretation
A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media as defined in paragraph [0087]
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 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 1 recites “wherein a bit series comprises a first value for a position of an X or Y character in a Pauli string and a second value for a position of a non-X or Y character in the Pauli string” in lines 4-6. It is unclear how bit series is related to the first bit series and/or the second bit series. It is unclear how it is possible for the bit series to include a first and second value for a Y character in the same position. For purposes of examination, this is interpreted as “wherein a bit series comprises a first value for a position of an X or Y character in a Pauli string and a second value for a position of a non-X or non-Y character in the Pauli string”. Claims 8 and 15 recites a similar limitation and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 2-4 and 6-7 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Claims 9-11 and 13-14 inherit the same deficiency as claim 8 by reason of dependence. Claims 16-18 and 20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 15 by reason of dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1-4 and 6-7 recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Claims 8-11 and 13-14 recite a system and, therefore, is a machine. Claims 15-18 and 20 recite computer program product and, therefore, is an article of manufacture.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
calculating, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, expectation values of two Pauli-strings based on a first bit series of a first Pauli-string of the two Pauli-strings and a second bit series of a second Pauli-string of the two Pauli-strings, wherein a bit series comprise a first value for a position of an X or Y character in a Pauli string and a second value for a position of a non-X or Y character in the Pauli string; and
determining, by the system, that a position of the first value in the first bit series and the second bit series is the same or determining, by the system, that the first bit series and the second bit series are the same.
The above underlined limitations of calculating expectation values of two Pauli-strings and determining that a first and second bit series representing the two Pauli-strings are the same amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “calculating” and “determining” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “by a system operatively coupled to a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a system operatively coupled to a processor” language, the claim encompasses manually multiplying probability amplitudes and a phase value based on the first bit series and the second bit series to calculate the expectation values as described in at least paragraph [0041]; and mentally comparing the two bit series to determine that they are the same. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a system operatively coupled to a processor. However, the additional elements of “a system” and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for performing mathematical calculations coupled to a processor) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements of “a system operatively coupled to a processor” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which the calculation is performed by a system that is connected to a processor. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, 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 elements of “a system” and “a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for performing mathematical calculations coupled to a processor) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Further, the additional elements of “a system operatively coupled to a processor” is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which the calculation is performed by a system that is connected to a processor. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 2-4 and 6-7 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 2 recites further abstract idea of “selecting the two Pauli-strings from a set of two or more Pauli-strings”; claim 4 recites further details of the abstract idea of “calculating the expectation values of the two Pauli-strings based on the probability amplitudes”; claim 7 recites further details of the abstract idea of “calculating the expectation values of the two Pauli-strings based on the probability amplitudes” which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 2, 4 and 7 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 3 recites the following additional elements: loading probability amplitudes of an index value and an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series; claim 6 recites the following additional elements: loading probability amplitudes of an index value, an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series, a second exclusive or result of the index value and the second bit series, and a third exclusive or result of the index value, the second bit series and the first bit series. However, the additional elements of “loading probability amplitudes of an index value and an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series” in claim 3; and “loading probability amplitudes of an index value, an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series, a second exclusive or result of the index value and the second bit series, and a third exclusive or result of the index value, the second bit series and the first bit series” in claim 6 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claims 3 and 6 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, 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 elements of “loading probability amplitudes of an index value and an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series” in claim 3; and “loading probability amplitudes of an index value, an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series, a second exclusive or result of the index value and the second bit series, and a third exclusive or result of the index value, the second bit series and the first bit series” in claim 6 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 1, claim 8 recites
A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor, operably coupled to the memory, and that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
an expectation component configured to calculate expectation values of two Pauli-strings based on a first bit series of a first Pauli-string of the two Pauli-strings and a second bit series of a second Pauli-string of the two Pauli-strings, wherein a bit series comprise a first value for a position of an X or Y in a Pauli string and a second value for a position of a non-X or Y in the Pauli string; and
a comparison component configured to determine that the first bit series and the second bit series are the same or determine that a position of the first value in the first bit series and the second bit series is the same.
The above underlined limitations of calculating expectation values of two Pauli-strings and determining that a first and second bit series representing the two Pauli-strings are the same amounts to processing mathematical relationships/calculations and falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “calculate” and “determine” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, the claim encompasses manually multiplying probability amplitudes and a phase value based on the first bit series and the second bit series to calculate the expectation values as described in at least paragraph [0041]; and mentally comparing the two bit series to determine that they are the same. Accordingly, the claim is directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the following additional elements: a memory that stores computer executable components; a processor, operably coupled to the memory, and that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: an expectation component and a comparison component. However, the additional elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, “an expectation component” and “a comparison component” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing computer programs including an expectation calculation program and a comparison program; and a generic computer component for executing the computer programs to calculate the expectation values and the comparison operation) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 8 does not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, 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 elements of “a memory”, “a processor”, “an expectation component” and “a comparison component” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component for storing computer programs including an expectation calculation program and a comparison program; and a generic computer component for executing the computer programs to calculate the expectation values and the comparison operation) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component or merely as tools to implement the abstract idea or no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 1, claims 9-11 and 13-14 recite the same abstract idea as claim 8 by reason of dependence. Further, claim 9 recites further abstract idea of “select the two Pauli-strings from a set of two or more Pauli-strings”; claim 11 recites further details of the abstract idea of “calculate the expectation values of the two Pauli-strings based on the probability amplitudes”; claim 14 recites further details of the abstract idea of “calculate the expectation values of the two Pauli-strings based on the probability amplitudes” which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular claims 9, 11 and 14 do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. Accordingly, the claims are directed to recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 10 recites the following additional elements: load probability amplitudes of an index value and a an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series; claim 13 recites the following additional elements: load probability amplitudes of an index value, an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series, a second exclusive or result of the index value and the second bit series, and a third an exclusive or result of the index value, the second bit series and the first bit series. However, the additional elements of “load probability amplitudes of an index value and a an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series” in claim 10; and “load probability amplitudes of an index value, an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series, a second exclusive or result of the index value and the second bit series, and a third an exclusive or result of the index value, the second bit series and the first bit series” in claim 13 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering. The additional elements do not, individually or in combination, integrate the exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claims 10 and 13 do not include additional elements that, individually or in combination, 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 elements of “load probability amplitudes of an index value and a an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series” in claim 10; and “load probability amplitudes of an index value, an exclusive or result of the index value and the first bit series, a second exclusive or result of the index value and the second bit series, and a third an exclusive or result of the index value, the second bit series and the first bit series” in claim 13 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) which states that the courts have recognized computer functions such as “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory” as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims do not recite additional elements that alone or in combination amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20, they are directed to a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions executed by the processor of claims 8-11 and 14 respectively and/or implements the method of claims 1-4 and 7 respectively. Claims 1-4 and 7 and/or claims 8-11 and 14 analysis applies equally to claims 15-18 and 20 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for indication of allowable subject matter are the same reasons provided in the non-final office action submitted on 04/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
In view of amendments made, the objection to the drawings, specification and claims has been withdrawn. However, the amendments made raises new objections to the specification and claims as discussed above.
Applicant has not provided any argument with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 12-13, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 10-11, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims -4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims result in reduced memory load operations of the quantum simulations by grouping similar Pauli-strings together and loading a statevector a single time for multiple Paul strings and cited to paragraphs [0024-0026] for the alleged improvement.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing unclaimed features, and the alleged improvement is not reflected in the claims. The claims do not recite grouping similar Pauli-strings together and loading a statevector a single time for the multiple similar Pauli strings or loading probability amplitudes of the multiple similar Paul strings with a single load of the statevector. See MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information.
Conclusion
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 Carlo Waje whose telephone number is (571)272-5767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, 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.
/Carlo Waje/Examiner, Art Unit 2151 (571)272-5767
Prosecution Insights