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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a device, claims 11-16 are directed to a medium and claims 17-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims are eligible under Step 1 for being directed to a machine, a manufacture and a process, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites:
defining a system by a set of state variables and a set of rules, the set of rules identifying a set of actions to be performed based on a present state of the set of state variables - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
wherein the Al rule engine evaluates the set of rules to transition the system from the present state to a desired state - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 2 recites:
reducing the set of state variables to a set of facts; defining a set of trigger functions based on the set of facts; defining the set of actions to be performed, each action of the set of actions manipulating one or more facts of the set of facts; evaluating the set of facts based on the set of trigger functions and the set of actions, forming an initial set of one or more Qbits - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of observing, evaluating and judging data that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
defining the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits based on the set of actions to be performed - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of observing, evaluating and judging data that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
modifying one or more components of the system according to the information defining state variables to be modified and values to which the state variables should be modified - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and modifying data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Independent claim 11 recites:
determining that the AI rule engine is in a stuck state, the stuck state defined by a set of state variables that selectively trigger rules of the AI rule engine - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
identifying a desired state of the AI rule engine - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of observing, evaluating and judging data that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper;
determining a first set of facts corresponding to the set of state variables - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
determining a second set of facts corresponding to a set of possible actions to resolve the stuck state to the desired state of the AI rule engine - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
determining a set of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts and the second set of facts - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 13 recites:
defining a set of state variables which represent resources needed in the AI rule engine, each state variable having a value - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper;
converting the value to one or more facts of the first set of facts corresponding to the set of state variables - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper; and
assigning a Qbit of the set of Qbits to the value, the Qbit having an assigned value of true or false - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 14 recites:
defining a fact to include one or more variables which may be set to a predetermined state to trigger an action of the set of possible actions - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper; and
defining a fact to have a value corresponding to a predetermined value of a state variable - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 16 recites:
identifying a network fault causing the stuck state - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of observing, evaluating and judging data that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
converting the set of solution Qbits to a set of solution actions - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Independent claim 17 recites:
Identifying a predetermined state of a communications system - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
the AI rule engine configured to evaluate the state variables and implement actions to transition the communications system from the predetermined state to a desired state - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
reducing the predetermined state of the communications system to a first set of facts - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of observing, evaluating and judging data that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
reducing a set of actions to be taken to place the communications system in the desired state to a second set of facts - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of observing, evaluating and judging data that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper; and
converting the first set of facts and the second set of facts to the set of Qbits corresponding to the predetermined state of the communications system - Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they recite the additional elements:
Independent claim 1:
A device, comprising: a quantum computer; a classical computer in data communication with the quantum computer, the classical computer comprising a processing system including a processor and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
wherein the classical computer implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine comprising the set of rules - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
providing information about the set of state variables and the set of rules to the quantum computer - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
receiving information from the quantum computer, the information defining a set of required state variables, the set of required state variables determined by the quantum computer to trigger of the set of rules of the Al rule engine to put the system into the desired state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 2:
providing the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer for processing by the quantum computer - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 3:
providing a subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition, the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits defining a set of possible solutions, the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits to be processed by the quantum computer simultaneously to simultaneously produce all possible solutions of the set of possible solutions - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 5:
receiving information defining state variables to be modified and values to which the state variables should be modified to attain the desired state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Independent claim 11:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, a classical computer, a quantum computer - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
providing the set of Qbits to a quantum computer - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
receiving, at the classical computer from the quantum computer, a solution, the solution corresponding to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 12:
providing a first subset of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
providing a second subset of Qbits corresponding to the second set of facts, wherein the providing a second subset of Qbits comprises providing the second subset of Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition to cause the quantum computer to test all possible actions of the set of possible actions simultaneously - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15:
modifying one or more components of the AI rule engine according to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 16:
wherein the AI rule engine manages a communications system for providing communications to a plurality of subscribers - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
receiving from the quantum computer a set of solution Qbits, the set of solution Qbits defining the one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
performing, by the classical computer, the set of solution actions to correct the network fault - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Independent claim 17:
a processing system including a processor of a classical computer, a communications system, the communications system managed by an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine implementing a plurality of rules in response to a set of state variables, a quantum computer - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
providing, by the processing system, to a quantum computer, a set of Qbits corresponding to the predetermined state of the communications system - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
receiving, by the processing system, from the quantum computer, a set of solution Qbits, the set of solution Qbits corresponding to one or more actions of the AI rule engine to place the communication system in the desired state from the predetermined state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 18:
providing, by the processing system, to the quantum computer, a first subset of Qbits corresponding to a set of states of the predetermined state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and
providing, by the processing system, to the quantum computer, a second subset of Qbits corresponding to a set of possible actions to change a state of the communications system from the predetermined state, wherein the providing the second subset of Qbits comprises providing the second subset of Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20:
modifying, by the processing system, one or more components of the communication system according to the set of solution Qbits to place the communication system in the desired state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements:
Independent claim 1:
A device, comprising: a quantum computer; a classical computer in data communication with the quantum computer, the classical computer comprising a processing system including a processor and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
wherein the classical computer implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine comprising the set of rules - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
providing information about the set of state variables and the set of rules to the quantum computer - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II);
receiving information from the quantum computer, the information defining a set of required state variables, the set of required state variables determined by the quantum computer to trigger of the set of rules of the Al rule engine to put the system into the desired state - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 2:
providing the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer for processing by the quantum computer - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 3:
providing a subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition, the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits defining a set of possible solutions, the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits to be processed by the quantum computer simultaneously to simultaneously produce all possible solutions of the set of possible solutions - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 5:
receiving information defining state variables to be modified and values to which the state variables should be modified to attain the desired state - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Independent claim 11:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, a classical computer, a quantum computer - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
providing the set of Qbits to a quantum computer - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
receiving, at the classical computer from the quantum computer, a solution, the solution corresponding to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claim 12:
providing a first subset of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
providing a second subset of Qbits corresponding to the second set of facts, wherein the providing a second subset of Qbits comprises providing the second subset of Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition to cause the quantum computer to test all possible actions of the set of possible actions simultaneously - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15:
modifying one or more components of the AI rule engine according to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 16:
wherein the AI rule engine manages a communications system for providing communications to a plurality of subscribers - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
receiving from the quantum computer a set of solution Qbits, the set of solution Qbits defining the one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
performing, by the classical computer, the set of solution actions to correct the network fault - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Independent claim 17:
a processing system including a processor of a classical computer, a communications system, the communications system managed by a rule engine implementing a plurality of rules in response to a set of state variables, a quantum computer - These limitations amount to components of a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, by use of conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
providing, by the processing system, to a quantum computer, a set of Qbits corresponding to the predetermined state of the communications system - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
receiving, by the processing system, from the quantum computer, a set of solution Qbits, the solution Qbits corresponding to one or more actions of the classical computer to place the communication system in a desired state from the predetermined state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, gathering data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 18:
providing, by the processing system, to the quantum computer, a first subset of Qbits corresponding to a set of states of the predetermined state - which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
providing, by the processing system, to the quantum computer, a second subset of Qbits corresponding to a set of possible actions to change a state of the communications system from the predetermined state, wherein the providing the second subset of Qbits comprises providing the second subset of Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data transmitting, transmitting data between devices is well known which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20:
modifying, by the processing system, one or more components of the communication system according to the set of solution Qbits to place the communication system in the desired state - the step recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, US 20230143904 A1, in view of Sim, US 20210133617 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cao teaches a device (Fig. 3, 300; [0099]), comprising:
a quantum computer (Fig. 3, 102; [0099]);
a classical computer in data communication with the quantum computer (Fig. 3, 306; [0099]), the classical computer comprising a processing system including a processor (Fig. 3, 308; [0099]) and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Fig. 3, 310; [0099]), the operations comprising:
defining a system by a set of state variables and a set of rules, the set of rules identifying a set of actions to be performed based on a present state of the set of state variables ([0055] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart of a method 400 performed by one embodiment of the present invention for optimizing transport of a set of ingredients between a plurality of sources, at least one terminal, and a plurality of pools, described by an objective function, a set of variables, and a set of constraints. The method 400 may be performed by at least one processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium. The method 400 includes: (A) transforming the objective function, the set of variables, and the set of constraints into a binary cost function (FIG. 4, operation 402). The transforming 402 may include: (A)(1) discretizing the set of variables into a set of a binary variables 406 (FIG. 4, operation 404); (A)(2) transforming the objective function into a binary cost function 410 of the set of binary variables 406 (FIG. 4, operation 408); and (A)(3) adding, for each constraint in the set of constraints, one or more terms to the binary cost function, to create a completed cost function 414 (FIG. 4, operation 412));
providing information about the set of state variables and the set of rules to the quantum computer ([0056] The method 400 further includes: (B) providing the completed cost function 414 to a solver to obtain a solution or approximate solution 418; [0057] The solver may, for example, be implemented on a quantum computer, and providing the completed cost function to the solver may include providing the completed cost function to the solver on the quantum computer).
Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein the classical computer implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine comprising the set of rules, and wherein the Al rule engine evaluates the set of rules to transition the system from the present state to a desired state; receiving information from the quantum computer, the information defining a set of required state variables, the set of required state variables determined by the quantum computer to trigger of the set of rules of the Al rule engine to put the system into the desired state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sim teaches
wherein the classical computer implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine comprising the set of rules, and wherein the Al rule engine evaluates the set of rules to transition the system from the present state to a desired state ([0015] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart is shown of a method 400 performed by a hybrid quantum-classical computer according to one embodiment of the present invention. The hybrid quantum-classical computer may be implemented in any of the ways disclosed herein (such as in the ways shown in FIGS. 1 and 3), and may include both a classical computer and a quantum computer; [0016] The method 400 receives as input, at the classical computer, the set of parameters P 450 (FIG. 4, operation 402); [0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404); [0019] In some embodiments, a fixed sparsity value F, representing a fraction of the number of parameters in the original set P 450, may be chosen. The operations 404 and 406 may then be constrained to update the set S such that F=|S|/|P|; [0024] In one embodiment, the sparsity parameter F may be used to constrain the number of parameters in the set S for every iteration; [0032] The method may include adding a new parameter to the subset S before (C). Adding the new parameter may include adding the new parameter from the first set of parameters. The method may further include iteratively performing (A)-(C) in a plurality of iterations, with each of a plurality of subsets of P acting as the subset S in a sequence until a desired constraint on the objective function is achieved; [0033] The method may further include iteratively performing (A)-(C) in a plurality of iterations, with each of a plurality of subsets of P acting as the subset S in a sequence until a desired constraint on the objective function is achieved);
receiving information from the quantum computer, the information defining a set of required state variables, the set of required state variables determined by the quantum computer to trigger of the set of rules of the Al rule engine to put the system into the desired state ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function; [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a tunable quantum evolution with respect to an objective function as suggested in Sim into Cao’s system because both of these systems are addressing a hybrid quantum device includes both a classical computer component and a quantum computer component. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for improvements in initial state preparation for quantum computers (Sim, [0003]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches
reducing the set of state variables to a set of facts ([0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404). The method 400 may choose the subset S 458 in any of a variety of ways, such as in the way shown in the method 500 of FIG. 5, in which the classical computer removes a subset of parameters P dropped 452 from the set P 450 based on some defined criteria (FIG. 5, operation 405). The resulting residual subset of P 450 (i.e., P 450-Pdropped 452) is referred to herein as subset P residual 454. The resulting quantum evolution is described only by the residual parameter subset S 458. The parameter subset P dropped 452 may be “removed” by, for example: (1) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to a value such that the parameter's corresponding operation is the trivial operation (identity), (2) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to zero, or (3) in quantum annealing, removing the step associated with the parameters Pdropped from the annealing schedule. Regardless of the particular method that is used to remove the parameter subset Pdropped, the effect of removing them is to reduce the number of non-trivial operations in the quantum evolution. Note that P residual 454 may contain a subset of parameters P ignore 480, which remain a part of the quantum evolution but are not in the subset S 458 and hence are not tuned according to the tuning operation 410);
defining a set of trigger functions based on the set of facts ([0015] Furthermore, assume for purposes of example that each of the operations has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other operations in the overall sequence, and that each of the parameters P 450, therefore, also has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other parameters in P 450);
defining the set of actions to be performed, each action of the set of actions manipulating one or more facts of the set of facts ([0015] Assume that a quantum evolution may be described as a combination of controllable and fixed operations, and that each of the controllable operations may be described by one or more corresponding tunable parameters P 450 that define the operation)
evaluating the set of facts based on the set of trigger functions and the set of actions, forming an initial set of one or more Qbits ([0078] Referring to FIG. 3, a diagram is shown of a hybrid classical quantum computer (HQC) 300; [0079] The quantum computer component 102 may include a plurality of qubits 104, as described above in connection with FIG. 1. A single qubit may represent a one, a zero, or any quantum superposition of those two qubit states. The classical computer component 304 may provide classical state preparation signals 332 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may prepare the states of the qubits 104 in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2A-2B); and
providing the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer for processing by the quantum computer ([0080] Once the qubits 104 have been prepared, the classical processor 308 may provide classical control signals 334 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may apply the gate operations specified by the control signals 332 to the qubits 104, as a result of which the qubits 104 arrive at a final state).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches wherein the providing the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer comprises:
providing a subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition, the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits defining a set of possible solutions, the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits to be processed by the quantum computer simultaneously to simultaneously produce all possible solutions of the set of possible solutions ([0049] Quantum annealing starts with the classical computer 254 generating an initial Hamiltonian 260 and a final Hamiltonian 262 based on a computational problem 258 to be solved, and providing the initial Hamiltonian 260, the final Hamiltonian 262 and an annealing schedule 270 as input to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 prepares a well-known initial state 266 (FIG. 2B, operation 264), such as a quantum-mechanical superposition of all possible states (candidate states) with equal weights, based on the initial Hamiltonian 260. The classical computer 254 provides the initial Hamiltonian 260, a final Hamiltonian 262, and an annealing schedule 270 to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 starts in the initial state 266, and evolves its state according to the annealing schedule 270 following the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, a natural quantum-mechanical evolution of physical systems (FIG. 2B, operation 268) … At the end of the time evolution, the set of qubits on the quantum annealer is in a final state 272, which is expected to be close to the ground state of the classical Ising model that corresponds to the solution to the original optimization problem 258; [0050] The final state 272 of the quantum computer 254 is measured, thereby producing results 276 (i.e., measurements) (FIG. 2B, operation 274). The measurement operation 274 may be performed, for example, in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed herein in connection with the measurement unit 110 in FIG. 1. The classical computer 254 performs postprocessing on the measurement results 276 to produce output 280 representing a solution to the original computational problem 258 (FIG. 2B, operation 278)).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches herein the operations further comprise: defining the subset of the initial set of one or more Qbits based on the set of actions to be performed ([0050] The final state 272 of the quantum computer 254 is measured, thereby producing results 276 (i.e., measurements) (FIG. 2B, operation 274). The measurement operation 274 may be performed, for example, in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed herein in connection with the measurement unit 110 in FIG. 1. The classical computer 254 performs postprocessing on the measurement results 276 to produce output 280 representing a solution to the original computational problem 258 (FIG. 2B, operation 278)).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches wherein the receiving information from the quantum computer defining a set of required state variables comprises: receiving information defining state variables to be modified and values to which the state variables should be modified to attain the desired state ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function. Examples of such an optimization are: (1) tuning the evolution to minimize the expectation value of an energy eigenfunction; (2) maximizing the fidelity for a prepared quantum state to match a target quantum state; (3) minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between a trial distribution, which is the result of measuring the output quantum state, and a target distribution. Examples of optimization techniques for performing the tuning in operation 410 are: (1) gradient-based methods such as BFGS or conjugate-gradient method; (2) gradient-free methods such as COBYLA or Bayesian optimization; [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: modifying one or more components of the system according to the information defining state variables to be modified and values to which the state variables should be modified ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function).
Regarding independent claim 11, Cao teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations ([0055]; [0109]), the operations comprising:
determining, by a classical computer that implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine comprising a set of rules, that the AI rule engine is in a stuck state, the stuck state defined by a set of state variables that selectively trigger rules of the AI rule engine ([0055] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart of a method 400 performed by one embodiment of the present invention for optimizing transport of a set of ingredients between a plurality of sources, at least one terminal, and a plurality of pools, described by an objective function, a set of variables, and a set of constraints. The method 400 may be performed by at least one processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium. The method 400 includes: (A) transforming the objective function, the set of variables, and the set of constraints into a binary cost function (FIG. 4, operation 402). The transforming 402 may include: (A)(1) discretizing the set of variables into a set of a binary variables 406 (FIG. 4, operation 404); (A)(2) transforming the objective function into a binary cost function 410 of the set of binary variables 406 (FIG. 4, operation 408); and (A)(3) adding, for each constraint in the set of constraints, one or more terms to the binary cost function, to create a completed cost function 414 (FIG. 4, operation 412));
identifying a desired state of the AI rule engine ([0056] The method 400 further includes: (B) providing the completed cost function 414 to a solver to obtain a solution or approximate solution 418, wherein the solution or approximate solution 418 represents a flow of the set of ingredients between the plurality of sources, the plurality of pools, and the at least one terminal (FIG. 4, operation 416)).
Cao does not explicitly disclose
determining a first set of facts corresponding to the set of state variables;
determining a second set of facts corresponding to a set of possible actions to resolve the stuck state to the desired state of the AI rule engine;
determining a set of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts and the second set of facts;
providing the set of Qbits to a quantum computer; and
receiving, at the classical computer from the quantum computer, a solution, the solution corresponding to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sim teaches
determining a first set of facts corresponding to the set of state variables ([0015] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart is shown of a method 400 performed by a hybrid quantum-classical computer according to one embodiment of the present invention. The hybrid quantum-classical computer may be implemented in any of the ways disclosed herein (such as in the ways shown in FIGS. 1 and 3), and may include both a classical computer and a quantum computer; [0016] The method 400 receives as input, at the classical computer, the set of parameters P 450 (FIG. 4, operation 402); [0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404). The method 400 may choose the subset S 458 in any of a variety of ways, such as in the way shown in the method 500 of FIG. 5, in which the classical computer removes a subset of parameters P dropped 452 from the set P 450 based on some defined criteria (FIG. 5, operation 405). The resulting residual subset of P 450 (i.e., P 450-Pdropped 452) is referred to herein as subset P residual 454. The resulting quantum evolution is described only by the residual parameter subset S 458. The parameter subset P dropped 452 may be “removed” by, for example: (1) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to a value such that the parameter's corresponding operation is the trivial operation (identity), (2) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to zero, or (3) in quantum annealing, removing the step associated with the parameters Pdropped from the annealing schedule. Regardless of the particular method that is used to remove the parameter subset Pdropped, the effect of removing them is to reduce the number of non-trivial operations in the quantum evolution. Note that P residual 454 may contain a subset of parameters P ignore 480, which remain a part of the quantum evolution but are not in the subset S 458 and hence are not tuned according to the tuning operation 410);
determining a second set of facts corresponding to a set of possible actions to resolve the stuck state to the desired state of the AI rule engine ([0015] Furthermore, assume for purposes of example that each of the operations has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other operations in the overall sequence, and that each of the parameters P 450, therefore, also has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other parameters in P 450. Assume that a quantum evolution may be described as a combination of controllable and fixed operations, and that each of the controllable operations may be described by one or more corresponding tunable parameters P 450 that define the operation);
determining a set of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts and the second set of facts ([0078] Referring to FIG. 3, a diagram is shown of a hybrid classical quantum computer (HQC) 300; [0079] The quantum computer component 102 may include a plurality of qubits 104, as described above in connection with FIG. 1. A single qubit may represent a one, a zero, or any quantum superposition of those two qubit states. The classical computer component 304 may provide classical state preparation signals 332 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may prepare the states of the qubits 104 in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2A-2B);
providing the set of Qbits to a quantum computer ([0080] Once the qubits 104 have been prepared, the classical processor 308 may provide classical control signals 334 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may apply the gate operations specified by the control signals 332 to the qubits 104, as a result of which the qubits 104 arrive at a final state); and
receiving, at the classical computer from the quantum computer, a solution, the solution corresponding to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function; [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a tunable quantum evolution with respect to an objective function as suggested in Sim into Cao’s system because both of these systems are addressing a hybrid quantum device includes both a classical computer component and a quantum computer component. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for improvements in initial state preparation for quantum computers (Sim, [0003]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches wherein the providing the set of Qbits to the quantum computer comprises:
providing a first subset of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts ([0080] Once the qubits 104 have been prepared, the classical processor 308 may provide classical control signals 334 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may apply the gate operations specified by the control signals 332 to the qubits 104, as a result of which the qubits 104 arrive at a final state); and
providing a second subset of Qbits corresponding to the second set of facts, wherein the providing a second subset of Qbits comprises providing the second subset of Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition to cause the quantum computer to test all possible actions of the set of possible actions simultaneously ([0049] Quantum annealing starts with the classical computer 254 generating an initial Hamiltonian 260 and a final Hamiltonian 262 based on a computational problem 258 to be solved, and providing the initial Hamiltonian 260, the final Hamiltonian 262 and an annealing schedule 270 as input to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 prepares a well-known initial state 266 (FIG. 2B, operation 264), such as a quantum-mechanical superposition of all possible states (candidate states) with equal weights, based on the initial Hamiltonian 260. The classical computer 254 provides the initial Hamiltonian 260, a final Hamiltonian 262, and an annealing schedule 270 to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 starts in the initial state 266, and evolves its state according to the annealing schedule 270 following the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, a natural quantum-mechanical evolution of physical systems (FIG. 2B, operation 268) … At the end of the time evolution, the set of qubits on the quantum annealer is in a final state 272, which is expected to be close to the ground state of the classical Ising model that corresponds to the solution to the original optimization problem 258; [0050] The final state 272 of the quantum computer 254 is measured, thereby producing results 276 (i.e., measurements) (FIG. 2B, operation 274). The measurement operation 274 may be performed, for example, in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed herein in connection with the measurement unit 110 in FIG. 1. The classical computer 254 performs postprocessing on the measurement results 276 to produce output 280 representing a solution to the original computational problem 258 (FIG. 2B, operation 278)).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Cao further teaches
wherein the operations further comprise:
defining a set of state variables which represent resources needed in the AI rule engine, each state variable having a value ([0055] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart of a method 400 performed by one embodiment of the present invention for optimizing transport of a set of ingredients between a plurality of sources, at least one terminal, and a plurality of pools, described by an objective function, a set of variables, and a set of constraints).
Sim further teaches
converting the value to one or more facts of the first set of facts corresponding to the set of state variables (Sim [0015] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart is shown of a method 400 performed by a hybrid quantum-classical computer according to one embodiment of the present invention. The hybrid quantum-classical computer may be implemented in any of the ways disclosed herein (such as in the ways shown in FIGS. 1 and 3), and may include both a classical computer and a quantum computer; [0016] The method 400 receives as input, at the classical computer, the set of parameters P 450 (FIG. 4, operation 402); [0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404). The method 400 may choose the subset S 458 in any of a variety of ways, such as in the way shown in the method 500 of FIG. 5, in which the classical computer removes a subset of parameters P dropped 452 from the set P 450 based on some defined criteria (FIG. 5, operation 405). The resulting residual subset of P 450 (i.e., P 450-Pdropped 452) is referred to herein as subset P residual 454. The resulting quantum evolution is described only by the residual parameter subset S 458. The parameter subset P dropped 452 may be “removed” by, for example: (1) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to a value such that the parameter's corresponding operation is the trivial operation (identity), (2) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to zero, or (3) in quantum annealing, removing the step associated with the parameters Pdropped from the annealing schedule. Regardless of the particular method that is used to remove the parameter subset Pdropped, the effect of removing them is to reduce the number of non-trivial operations in the quantum evolution. Note that P residual 454 may contain a subset of parameters P ignore 480, which remain a part of the quantum evolution but are not in the subset S 458 and hence are not tuned according to the tuning operation 410); and
assigning a Qbit of the set of Qbits to the value, the Qbit having an assigned value of true or false (Sim [0078] Referring to FIG. 3, a diagram is shown of a hybrid classical quantum computer (HQC) 300; [0079] The quantum computer component 102 may include a plurality of qubits 104, as described above in connection with FIG. 1. A single qubit may represent a one, a zero, or any quantum superposition of those two qubit states. The classical computer component 304 may provide classical state preparation signals 332 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may prepare the states of the qubits 104 in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2A-2B; [0080] Once the qubits 104 have been prepared, the classical processor 308 may provide classical control signals 334 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may apply the gate operations specified by the control signals 332 to the qubits 104, as a result of which the qubits 104 arrive at a final state).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches
wherein the determining the second set of facts corresponding to the set of possible actions comprises:
defining a fact to include one or more variables which may be set to a predetermined state to trigger an action of the set of possible actions ([0015] Furthermore, assume for purposes of example that each of the operations has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other operations in the overall sequence, and that each of the parameters P 450, therefore, also has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other parameters in P 450); and
defining a fact to have a value corresponding to a predetermined value of a state variable ([0015] Assume that a quantum evolution may be described as a combination of controllable and fixed operations, and that each of the controllable operations may be described by one or more corresponding tunable parameters P 450 that define the operation).
Regarding dependent claim 15, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
modifying one or more components of the AI rule engine according to one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function; [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 that is incorporated. Cao further teaches wherein the AI rule engine manages a communications system for providing communications to a plurality of subscribers and the operations further comprise:
identifying a network fault causing the stuck state (Cao [0089] Although not shown explicitly in FIG. 1 and not required, the measurement unit 110 may provide one or more feedback signals 114 to the control unit 106 based on the measurement signals 112. For example, quantum computers referred to as “one-way quantum computers” or “measurement-based quantum computers” utilize such feedback 114 from the measurement unit 110 to the control unit 106. Such feedback 114 is also necessary for the operation of fault-tolerant quantum computing and error correction).
Sim teaches
receiving from the quantum computer a set of solution Qbits, the set of solution Qbits defining the one or more correct actions to take to achieve the desired state of the AI rule engine (Sim [0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function);
converting the set of solution Qbits to a set of solution actions (Sim [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)); and Cao further teaches
performing, by the classical computer, the set of solution actions to correct the network fault (Cao [0056] The method 400 further includes: (B) providing the completed cost function 414 to a solver to obtain a solution or approximate solution 418, wherein the solution or approximate solution 418 represents a flow of the set of ingredients between the plurality of sources, the plurality of pools, and the at least one terminal (FIG. 4, operation 416)).
Regarding independent claim 17, Cao teaches a method, comprising:
identifying, by a processing system including a processor of a classical computer (Fig. 3, 306, 308; [0099]), a predetermined state of a communications system, the communications system managed by an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine implementing a plurality of rules in response to a set of state variables ([0055] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart of a method 400 performed by one embodiment of the present invention for optimizing transport of a set of ingredients between a plurality of sources, at least one terminal, and a plurality of pools, described by an objective function, a set of variables, and a set of constraints. The method 400 may be performed by at least one processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium. The method 400 includes: (A) transforming the objective function, the set of variables, and the set of constraints into a binary cost function (FIG. 4, operation 402). The transforming 402 may include: (A)(1) discretizing the set of variables into a set of a binary variables 406 (FIG. 4, operation 404); (A)(2) transforming the objective function into a binary cost function 410 of the set of binary variables 406 (FIG. 4, operation 408); and (A)(3) adding, for each constraint in the set of constraints, one or more terms to the binary cost function, to create a completed cost function 414 (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
Cao does not explicitly disclose
the AI rule engine configured to evaluate the state variables and implement actions to transition the communications system from the predetermined state to a desired state;
providing, by the processing system, to a quantum computer, a set of Qbits corresponding to the predetermined state of the communications system; and
receiving, by the processing system, from the quantum computer, a set of solution Qbits, the set of solution Qbits corresponding to one or more actions of the AI rule engine to place the communication system in the desired state from the predetermined state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sim teaches
the AI rule engine configured to evaluate the state variables and implement actions to transition the communications system from the predetermined state to a desired state ([0015] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart is shown of a method 400 performed by a hybrid quantum-classical computer according to one embodiment of the present invention. The hybrid quantum-classical computer may be implemented in any of the ways disclosed herein (such as in the ways shown in FIGS. 1 and 3), and may include both a classical computer and a quantum computer; [0016] The method 400 receives as input, at the classical computer, the set of parameters P 450 (FIG. 4, operation 402); [0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404); [0019] In some embodiments, a fixed sparsity value F, representing a fraction of the number of parameters in the original set P 450, may be chosen. The operations 404 and 406 may then be constrained to update the set S such that F=|S|/|P|; [0024] In one embodiment, the sparsity parameter F may be used to constrain the number of parameters in the set S for every iteration; [0032] The method may include adding a new parameter to the subset S before (C). Adding the new parameter may include adding the new parameter from the first set of parameters. The method may further include iteratively performing (A)-(C) in a plurality of iterations, with each of a plurality of subsets of P acting as the subset S in a sequence until a desired constraint on the objective function is achieved; [0033] The method may further include iteratively performing (A)-(C) in a plurality of iterations, with each of a plurality of subsets of P acting as the subset S in a sequence until a desired constraint on the objective function is achieved);
providing, by the processing system, to a quantum computer, a set of Qbits corresponding to the predetermined state of the communications system ([0015] Referring to FIG. 4, a flowchart is shown of a method 400 performed by a hybrid quantum-classical computer according to one embodiment of the present invention. The hybrid quantum-classical computer may be implemented in any of the ways disclosed herein (such as in the ways shown in FIGS. 1 and 3), and may include both a classical computer and a quantum computer; [0016] The method 400 receives as input, at the classical computer, the set of parameters P 450 (FIG. 4, operation 402); [0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404). The method 400 may choose the subset S 458 in any of a variety of ways, such as in the way shown in the method 500 of FIG. 5, in which the classical computer removes a subset of parameters P dropped 452 from the set P 450 based on some defined criteria (FIG. 5, operation 405). The resulting residual subset of P 450 (i.e., P 450-Pdropped 452) is referred to herein as subset P residual 454. The resulting quantum evolution is described only by the residual parameter subset S 458. The parameter subset P dropped 452 may be “removed” by, for example: (1) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to a value such that the parameter's corresponding operation is the trivial operation (identity), (2) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to zero, or (3) in quantum annealing, removing the step associated with the parameters Pdropped from the annealing schedule. Regardless of the particular method that is used to remove the parameter subset Pdropped, the effect of removing them is to reduce the number of non-trivial operations in the quantum evolution. Note that P residual 454 may contain a subset of parameters P ignore 480, which remain a part of the quantum evolution but are not in the subset S 458 and hence are not tuned according to the tuning operation 410. Furthermore, assume for purposes of example that each of the operations has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other operations in the overall sequence, and that each of the parameters P 450, therefore, also has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other parameters in P 450. Assume that a quantum evolution may be described as a combination of controllable and fixed operations, and that each of the controllable operations may be described by one or more corresponding tunable parameters P 450 that define the operation; [0078] Referring to FIG. 3, a diagram is shown of a hybrid classical quantum computer (HQC) 300; [0079] The quantum computer component 102 may include a plurality of qubits 104, as described above in connection with FIG. 1. A single qubit may represent a one, a zero, or any quantum superposition of those two qubit states. The classical computer component 304 may provide classical state preparation signals 332 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may prepare the states of the qubits 104 in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2A-2B; [0080] Once the qubits 104 have been prepared, the classical processor 308 may provide classical control signals 334 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may apply the gate operations specified by the control signals 332 to the qubits 104, as a result of which the qubits 104 arrive at a final state); and
receiving, by the processing system, from the quantum computer, a set of solution Qbits, the set of solution Qbits corresponding to one or more actions of the AI rule engine to place the communication system in the desired state from the predetermined state ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function; [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a tunable quantum evolution with respect to an objective function as suggested in Sim into Cao’s system because both of these systems are addressing a hybrid quantum device includes both a classical computer component and a quantum computer component. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for improvements in initial state preparation for quantum computers (Sim, [0003]).
Regarding dependent claim 18, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches wherein the providing to the quantum computer the set of Qbits comprises:
providing, by the processing system, to the quantum computer, a first subset of Qbits corresponding to a set of states of the predetermined state ([0080] Once the qubits 104 have been prepared, the classical processor 308 may provide classical control signals 334 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may apply the gate operations specified by the control signals 332 to the qubits 104, as a result of which the qubits 104 arrive at a final state); and
providing, by the processing system, to the quantum computer, a second subset of Qbits corresponding to a set of possible actions to change a state of the communications system from the predetermined state, wherein the providing the second subset of Qbits comprises providing the second subset of Qbits to the quantum computer in superposition ([0049] Quantum annealing starts with the classical computer 254 generating an initial Hamiltonian 260 and a final Hamiltonian 262 based on a computational problem 258 to be solved, and providing the initial Hamiltonian 260, the final Hamiltonian 262 and an annealing schedule 270 as input to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 prepares a well-known initial state 266 (FIG. 2B, operation 264), such as a quantum-mechanical superposition of all possible states (candidate states) with equal weights, based on the initial Hamiltonian 260. The classical computer 254 provides the initial Hamiltonian 260, a final Hamiltonian 262, and an annealing schedule 270 to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 starts in the initial state 266, and evolves its state according to the annealing schedule 270 following the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, a natural quantum-mechanical evolution of physical systems (FIG. 2B, operation 268) … At the end of the time evolution, the set of qubits on the quantum annealer is in a final state 272, which is expected to be close to the ground state of the classical Ising model that corresponds to the solution to the original optimization problem 258; [0050] The final state 272 of the quantum computer 254 is measured, thereby producing results 276 (i.e., measurements) (FIG. 2B, operation 274). The measurement operation 274 may be performed, for example, in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed herein in connection with the measurement unit 110 in FIG. 1. The classical computer 254 performs postprocessing on the measurement results 276 to produce output 280 representing a solution to the original computational problem 258 (FIG. 2B, operation 278)).
Regarding dependent claim 19, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches comprising:
reducing, by the processing system, the predetermined state of the communications system to a first set of facts ([0017] The method 400 (e.g., the classical computer) chooses a subset S 458 of the set P 450 (operation 404). The method 400 may choose the subset S 458 in any of a variety of ways, such as in the way shown in the method 500 of FIG. 5, in which the classical computer removes a subset of parameters P dropped 452 from the set P 450 based on some defined criteria (FIG. 5, operation 405). The resulting residual subset of P 450 (i.e., P 450-Pdropped 452) is referred to herein as subset P residual 454. The resulting quantum evolution is described only by the residual parameter subset S 458. The parameter subset P dropped 452 may be “removed” by, for example: (1) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to a value such that the parameter's corresponding operation is the trivial operation (identity), (2) setting each of the parameters in P dropped 452 to zero, or (3) in quantum annealing, removing the step associated with the parameters Pdropped from the annealing schedule. Regardless of the particular method that is used to remove the parameter subset Pdropped, the effect of removing them is to reduce the number of non-trivial operations in the quantum evolution. Note that P residual 454 may contain a subset of parameters P ignore 480, which remain a part of the quantum evolution but are not in the subset S 458 and hence are not tuned according to the tuning operation 410);
reducing, by the processing system, a set of actions to be taken to place the communications system in the desired state to a second set of facts ([0015] Furthermore, assume for purposes of example that each of the operations has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other operations in the overall sequence, and that each of the parameters P 450, therefore, also has a relative ordering (in time of execution) with respect to the other parameters in P 450); and
converting the first set of facts and the second set of facts to the set of Qbits corresponding to the predetermined state of the communications system ([0078] Referring to FIG. 3, a diagram is shown of a hybrid classical quantum computer (HQC) 300; [0079] The quantum computer component 102 may include a plurality of qubits 104, as described above in connection with FIG. 1. A single qubit may represent a one, a zero, or any quantum superposition of those two qubit states. The classical computer component 304 may provide classical state preparation signals 332 to the quantum computer 102, in response to which the quantum computer 102 may prepare the states of the qubits 104 in any of the ways disclosed herein, such as in any of the ways disclosed in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2A-2B).
Regarding dependent claim 20, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 that is incorporated. Sim further teaches comprising:
modifying, by the processing system, one or more components of the communication system according to the set of solution Qbits to place the communication system in the desired state ([0020] The method 400 uses both the classical computer and the quantum computer to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters in the set S 458 (FIG. 4, operation 410). The parameters in set S 458 may be tuned, for example, by first applying the quantum evolution and then measuring (using the quantum computer) one or more qubits, and using these measurements to compute (using the classical computer) a cost function or objective function, followed by changing (using the classical computer) the values of the parameters in S 458, and then again applying the quantum evolution, measuring (using the quantum computer) the same qubit(s), and recomputing (using the classical computer) the cost function to minimize or maximize the cost function or objective function; [0021] After tuning the quantum evolution with respect to parameter set S 458, the method 400 outputs a description 460 of the quantum evolution that is controlled by parameters in set S 458, in which the values of these parameters have been tuned (FIG. 4, operation 412)).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Sim as applied in claim 1, further in view of Orus Lacort et al. (hereinafter Orus Lacort), US 20240020568 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the combination of Cao and Sim teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 that is incorporated. The combination of Cao and Sim does not explicitly disclose wherein the quantum computer comprises:
an input operative to receive an input value including a plurality of Qbits corresponding to the set of state variables and the set of rules; and
a first circuit configured to ensure that only valid permutations of Qbits are processed in the quantum computer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orus Lacort teaches
wherein the quantum computer comprises:
an input operative to receive an input value including a plurality of Qbits corresponding to the set of state variables and the set of rules (Fig. 1; [0022] The hybrid quantum-classical computing system 300 comprises a classical digital computer 500 and a quantum computer 400. The quantum computer 400 comprises as many qubits as variables in the cost function, thus, comprises N qubits, and a quantum circuit configured for performing a plurality of operations on said qubits. Each qubit has p maximally orthogonal states; [0023] The method 100 of the invention comprises the following steps, which are iteratively repeated until the cost of the cost function is minimized: [0024] a classical optimizer execution step 101 wherein the classical digital computer 500 executes a classical optimizer for the cost function, obtaining a plurality of optimized variational parameters, [0025] an optimized variational parameter sending step 102 wherein the classical digital computer 500 sends the plurality of optimized variational parameters to the quantum computer 400, a quantum circuit initialization step 201, wherein the quantum computer 400 initializes the plurality of qubits in an initial quantum state, the initial quantum state being the same for each qubit in all iterations); and
a first circuit configured to ensure that only valid permutations of Qbits are processed in the quantum computer ([0026] a quantum circuit execution step 202 wherein the quantum circuit modifies the initial quantum state of the qubits based on the values of the optimized variational parameters to a final quantum state, [0027] a quantum state measuring step 203 wherein the quantum computer 400 measures individually the final quantum state of each of the qubits in the quantum circuit by means of quantum state tomography, [0028] a quantum state sending step 204 wherein the quantum computer 400 sends the final quantum state of the qubits, to the classical digital computer 500, and [0029] a cost function calculation step 103 wherein the classical digital computer 500 calculates the cost of the cost function based on the final quantum state of the qubits in the quantum circuit, each qubit representing each of the variables of the cost function, each maximally orthogonal state of a qubit representing each of the values that the corresponding variable can have, and the final quantum state of each qubit corresponding to one of the p maximally orthogonal states of said).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of using the maximally orthogonal states of a qubit for representing the values of a variable of the cost function as suggested in Orus Lacort into Cao and Sim’s system because both of these systems are addressing a hybrid quantum device includes both a classical computer component and a quantum computer component. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for reducing the number of qubits necessary for solving the variational quantum optimization problem to the number of variables that the cost function that has to be minimized has (Orus Lacort, [0015]).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the combination of Cao, Sim and Orus Lacort teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 that is incorporated. Orus Lacort further teaches wherein the quantum computer further comprises:
a plurality of quantum rule gates corresponding to rules of the set of rules to produce output values, each respective quantum rule gate producing a respective output value in response to the input value, the output values in quantum entanglement with the input value ([0034] The quantum computer 400 is a gate based quantum computer in communication with the classical digital computer 500 which comprises a quantum circuit, the quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates configured for performing operations on the qubits, such that the quantum circuit modifies the initial quantum state of the qubits from their initial quantum state to a final quantum state. Quantum gates are configured for performing an operation on a qubit, or on more than a qubit. The quantum circuit depends on a plurality of parameters, said parameters defining the operations that the quantum gates of the quantum circuit perform. In an embodiment, the quantum gates are configured for performing unitary rotations on the qubits).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Sim, in view of Orus Lacort as applied in claim 8, further in view of KIM et al. (hereinafter KIM), US 20200219001 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the combination of Cao, Sim and Orus Lacort teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 that is incorporated. The combination of Cao, Sim and Orus Lacort does not explicitly disclose wherein quantum computer further comprises:
an amplitude amplification stage implementing Grover's algorithm to amplify the output values to thereby increase probability of finding a desired output value corresponding to the desired state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KIM teaches wherein quantum computer further comprises: an amplitude amplification stage implementing Grover's algorithm to amplify the output values to thereby increase probability of finding a desired output value corresponding to the desired state ([0048] The Grover's algorithm can be used in various types of search problems, including in unsorted database searches, whereby performing the search from a quantum computing approach, it is possible to do it in an optimal way that can get up to a quadratic speed improvement over the best classical computing approach; [0050] A quantum version of the oracle used in the Grover's algorithm can use as input a superposition of all the states at the same time. For all those input terms for which the pre-assigned condition is satisfied, the quantum oracle will “mark” those entries (in parallel, if there are more). Each iteration of the Grover's operator (which consists of the oracle and an “inversion about the mean” operation) will amplify the probability of the right answers being detected upon measurement. Repeated application of the Grover's operator will quickly evolve an initial state to a state where the measurement will yield a right answer with very high probability).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of the implementation of the Grover's algorithm performing the search from a quantum computing approach as suggested in KIM into Cao, Sim and Orus Lacort’s system because both of these systems are addressing a practical implementation of a multi-qubit gates for quantum computations. This modification would have been motivated by the desire for improving performance of quantum computer architectures (KIM, [0003]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the combination of Cao, Sim, Orus Lacort and KIM teaches all the limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 that is incorporated. KIM further teaches wherein quantum computer further comprises: a plurality of sequential stages, each stage of the plurality of sequential stages including a like plurality of quantum rule gates corresponding to rules of the set of rules to produce stage output values for each respective stage, the plurality of sequential stages for iterating to determine the desired output value corresponding to the desired state (0045] As described above, this disclosure proposes the use of higher order modes for the motional state (e.g., zig-zag modes, low-heating rate modes, high spatial frequency modes) and the use of internal states of the atom as the auxiliary states (e.g., Zeeman levels or D levels) to realize the CZ protocol while overcoming the problems and challenges that made the CZ protocol difficult to implement in the first place. This then allows the direct implementation of multi-qubit gates (e.g., n-controlled Z gate or C.sup.n-Z gate) instead of having to decompose the gate into a large number of pairwise interactions using two-qubit gates (e.g., MS gates); [0046] With the ability to use trapped ion technology to implement multi-qubit gates or multi-control gates using the various modifications of the CZ protocol discussed above, and with the added ability of maintaining the quality of these types of gates over a long time required for executing a given quantum computation by using, for example, individual optical addressing, mode frequency drift compensation, and/or laser beam intensity drift compensation, it is now possible to perform various algorithms more efficiently; [0047] A first such algorithm is the Grover's algorithm, where the implementation of multi-qubit gates allows for the efficient circuit-level implementation of oracles or similar functions. The Grover's algorithm is an algorithm used to solve satisfiability problem).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
(1) Regarding to 35 U.S.C 101 rejection, Applicant alleges Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended to recite additional subject matter related to the classical computer implementing an Al rule engine, and the interaction between the classical computer and quantum computer resulting in improved operation of the Al rules engine. Applicant further argues the independent claims as amended are not directed to an abstract idea because the independent claims as amended recite, among other features: 1. The claimed actions being taken by a combination of a classical computer and a quantum computer; 2. The classical computer implementing an AI rule engine; 3. The classical computer providing information relating to state variables and rules to the quantum computer; and 4. The quantum computer providing information to the classical computer to trigger rules in the AI rule engine. Applicant alleges the subject matter recited in the independent claims is integrated into a practical application and improves technology. For example, the claimed subject matter provides interaction between an AI rule engine and a quantum computer that "allow a quantum computer to make such predictions and therefore provide the AI system with capabilities not currently possible" and the subject matter recited in the independent claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the independent claims as amended recite an AI rule engine interacting with a quantum computer to assist the AI rule engine in entering a desired state".
As to point (1), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “the classical computer implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine”, “providing information about the set of state variables and the set of rules to the quantum computer”; “receiving information from the quantum computer”, “the set of required state variables determined by the quantum computer to trigger of the set of rules of the Al rule engine to put the system into the desired state”. These are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions and mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. As discuss in the rejection above, these claims recite defining a set of state variables and a set of rules, identifying a set of actions, determining that the AI rule engine is in a stuck state, identifying a desired state of the AI rule engine, determining a first set of facts corresponding to the set of state variables, determining a second set of facts corresponding to a set of possible actions to resolve the stuck state to the desired state of the AI rule engine, determining a set of Qbits corresponding to the first set of facts and the second set of facts, Identifying a predetermined state of a communications system, the AI rule engine configured to evaluate the state variables and implement actions to transition the communications system from the predetermined state to a desired state which are directed to an abstract idea that encompasses the mental process of evaluating data and selecting data based on judgement, which is observing, evaluating and judging that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. While the disclosure states that We have found a way to practically leverage key quantum computing advantages in a rule-based AI engine. By using quantum computing, the speed of the rule engine can increase by several orders of magnitude and enable such engines to address significantly larger problems, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Any purported improvements are provided by the judicial exception alone, i.e. mental process, thus the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims are patent ineligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as detailed in the rejections set forth above.
(2) Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant alleges the optimizing transport of a set of ingredients between a plurality of sources at least one terminal, and a plurality of pools, described by an objective function, a set of variables, and a set of constraints, as fairly described in Cao, fails to teach or suggest the classical computer implements an artificial intelligence (AI) rule engine comprising the set of rules, and wherein AI rule engine evaluates the set of rules to transition the system from the present state to a desired state and, receiving information from the quantum computer, the information defining a set of required state variables, the set of required state variables determined by the quantum computer to trigger of the set of rules of the AI rule engine to put the system into the desired state Thus, Cao fails to implicitly or inherently disclose the abovementioned features recited in amended claim 1. Notwithstanding whether the alleged combination of applied art would have been proper, Burns fails to remedy the deficiencies of Cao in respect of amended claim 1. For example, in connection with the section 103 treatment of claim 1, the Office Action at page 21 cites to Sim for an alleged teaching of tuning a parameter set S by applying the quantum evolution and then measuring one or more qubits, and using these measurements to computer a cost function or objective function. Such an alleged teaching of Sim is clearly distinct from the abovementioned features recited in amended claim 1 of the present paper.
As to point (2), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cao teaches a classical computer transforms an objective function, a set of variables (i.e. a set of state variables), and a set of constraints (i.e. a set of rules) into a binary cost function by evaluating the set of constraints, providing the completed cost function 414 to a solver which is implemented on a quantum computer to obtain a solution (Fig. 4; [0055]-[0056]). Sim teaches a method performed by a hybrid quantum-classical computer including both a classical computer and a quantum computer. The method receives as input, at the classical computer, the set of parameters. The method uses constraints to tune the quantum evolution that is described by the values of parameters until a desired constraint on the objective function is achieved ([0015]-[0016]; [0024]; [0033]). Thus, the combination of Cao and Sim is considered to teach claim 1. Similar arguments have been presented for claims 11 and 17 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons and consequently, dependent claims 2-6, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Sim as applied in claim 1, further in view of Orus Lacort and claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao, in view of Sim, in view of Orus Lacort as applied in claim 8, further in view of KIM.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Bangad (US 20180276749 A1) discloses managing a multi-disciplinary comprehensive real-time trading signal within a designated time frame.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
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 AMY P HOANG whose telephone number is (469)295-9134. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:30-5:00PM.
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, JENNIFER WELCH can be reached at 571-272-7212. 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.
/AMY P HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2143
/JENNIFER N WELCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143