DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant' s amendment filed 07/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 14-15 have been amended.
Claims 3, 7, and 9-12 have been canceled.
Specification has been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 13-15 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22383200.7, filed on 12/09/2022.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner' s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objection:
Acknowledgement is made of the amended Abstract. Objection to Abstract is withdrawn.
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 has been considered and is persuasive. Objections to claim 1 due to minor informalities are withdrawn.
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 2 to correct minor informalities. Objection to claim 2 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 1.
Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but were not persuasive. Rejections to claims due to lack of written description are maintained.
Applicant argues that “further details are not required [ ] because those methods were known on the date the application was filed” and discloses an example of quantum optimization [Spec. Pg.11 Ln.24]. After careful consideration, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2163, II., A., 2., “Information which is well known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification. See, e.g., Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1379-80, 231 USPQ 81, 90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, sufficient information must be provided to show that the inventor had possession of the invention as claimed.” Per MPEP 2161.01(I), “The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Computer-implemented inventions are often disclosed and claimed in terms of their functionality. For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure will require an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases).” Given the complexity and unpredictability associated with quantum computing, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 14 and the cancelation of claim 7. Applicant’s argument regarding claim 14 is persuasive. Rejection to claim 14 is withdrawn. Rejection to claim 7 is now moot given deletion.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
Acknowledgement is made of the cancelation of claim 12. Rejection to claim 12 is now moot given deletion.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of the cancelation of claim 3 and amended claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 14-15. Rejection to claim 3 is now moot given deletion. Office Action’s (dated 4/29/2026) software/signal per se rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn due to amendment. However, significant independent claim 1 amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection. See Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C §101 section below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 1 and cancelation of claim 10.
Significant independent claim 1 amendments necessitate new grounds of
rejection.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to amended claim 1 and claim 10 have been
considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See Stockert in view of Ahmadian in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 section below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of the cancelation of claim 7.
Applicants’ arguments regarding claims 4, 5 and 8 have been considered, but not persuasive. Rejections to claims are maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, and that Stockert doesn’t teach every element of claims 4 and 8, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In claim 4, Stockert discloses comprising processing, by at least one computing device, first data acquirable from the physical system ; the at least one computing device being additional to the at least one quantum computing device; the second data being the data acquirable from the physical system received in the step of receiving. (“an initial deployment of quantum/classical networks will require an overlay of quantum network elements and classical network elements where elements may be hybrid quantum / classical, classical and/or quantum only. Quantum computing elements may be adjunct to the digital twinning system.” [P.0106]), but fails to specifically disclose to reduce a dimensionality of the first data. However, CJ discloses reduce a dimensionality of the first data (“statistical dimensionality reduction methods are commonly used to create diagnostic datasets from multi-sensor systems.” CJ [Pg.13 Sec.4.2.2]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum digital twin method of Stockert to include reducing dimensionality of data, as CJ discloses, since it’s “useful for analyzing systems with multiple sensors to identify representative features extracted from the original sensor data and thus disregarding uninformative sensor variables.” CJ [Pg.13 Sec.4.2.2]. And in claim 8 CJ discloses the data indicative of the digital twin comprising data indicative of an estimation of an anomaly and a non-anomaly of the physical system (“The model is trained based on data considered to be operating at normal states to then be evaluated for new unseen data. Depending on the network's reconstruction error, an adaptive threshold is defined to determine whether the system is operating under normal or anomalous conditions.” CJ [Pg.3 P.1]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum digital twin method of Stockert to include anomaly detection, as CJ discloses, in order “to reduce operating expenditures (OPEX) related to unexpected maintenance events” CJ [Pg.1 Sec.1]. Thus, Applicant’s arguments not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 5 has been considered, but is not persuasive since the argument is dependent upon claim 1’s asserted allowability. As discussed above, claim 1 is not in condition for allowance, thus Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “processing [ ] to provide the data indicative of the digital
twin”. The Specification does not sufficiently describe how this is performed or how this is achieved. Pg.3 of the Specification recites “the step of processing comprises at least one of: computing an algorithm of quantum optimization and
computing a machine learning model”. The Spec. then lists several algorithm and machine learning model examples, but fails to sufficiently describe how the quantum computing device “processes” the algorithm examples to result in “data indicative of the digital twin”. Per MPEP 2161.01, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. [ ] It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.
The dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 13-15, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 13-14 are directed to a device, and as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Claim 15 is directed towards a computer readable medium, and as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mathematical Concepts and/or using a computer as a tool to perform a Mental Process, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per amended claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
processing, by the at least one quantum computing device, the data acquirable from the physical system to provide the data indicative of the digital twin, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards using a computer as a tool to perform a Mental Process and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Per Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.2 Ln.10-15], “processing” is defined as “applying an algorithm [ ] and adjusting an algorithm”, both of which can reasonably be performed by a person with/without the use of a physical aid. The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., using an algorithm. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), “[i]t is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula. In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas) ; Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea)")
the data indicative of the digital twin comprising data indicative of a reconfiguration of a physical parameter of the physical system; wherein the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter of the physical system is reconfiguration data for adjusting the physical system; wherein the physical parameter has a digital counterpart in the digital twin; the digital counterpart being reconfigurable; (As drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are directed towards Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). e.g., Mathematical Relationships. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.)
wherein the processing comprises using the received data in a performance, by the at least one quantum computing device, of a quantum optimization; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is directed towards using a computer as a tool to perform a Mental Process and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Per Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.10 Ln.25], “performance” is defined as “an estimation of a prediction of a value of a physical parameter”, which a person may reasonably perform with/without a physical aid. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Additionally, quantum optimization is interpreted as Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).)
wherein an output of the performance of the quantum optimization is the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter of the physical system. (This limitation elaborates on the performance of the quantum optimization, thus further amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform a Mental Process and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I).)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
receiving, by at least one quantum computing device, data acquirable from the physical system (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.)
reconfiguring, by an actuator and via sending the actuator a signal based on the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter, the physical parameter (The examiner interprets “reconfiguring [ ] the physical parameter” as updating the physical system parameter. The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g). Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. [ ] A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.” Additionally, per examiner’s interpretation given above, the limitation may also amount to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data outputting). Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d), “[t]he courts have recognized the following (i.e. applicable) computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, [ ] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which do not meaningfully limit the claim. A step of gathering and outputting data in a mathematical concept process does not add a meaningful limitation.
Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. [ ] A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.”
Per MPEP 2106.05(g), “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” Per MPEP 2106.05(d), “[t]he courts have recognized the following (i.e. applicable) computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, [ ] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Additionally, Applicant asserts in Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment Pg.7 Ln.5-8 (dated 7/29/2026), regarding the processing of data by the at least one computing device, that “further details are not required with respect to how the algorithms of quantum optimization mentioned on page 3 work because those methods were known on the date the application was filed”. Per MPEP 2106.05(d), “when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Given Applicant’s assertion, claim 1 is directed towards well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites further including a step of generating the digital twin based on the data indicative of the digital twin. The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). i.e. The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e. generating the digital twin), i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites comprising processing, by at least one computing device, first data acquirable from the physical system to reduce a dimensionality of the first data thereby obtaining second data; the at least one computing device being additional to the at least one quantum computing device; (The additional element elaborates on processing, thus further amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform a Mental Process and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I).)
the second data being the data acquirable from the physical system received in the step of receiving. (The additional element elaborates on the data being received, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites wherein the data received by the at least one quantum computing device in the step of receiving has been encrypted with post-quantum cryptography by at least one computing device; the at least one computing device being additional to the at least one quantum computing device. The additional element elaborates on the received data, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6 recites wherein the data received by the at least one quantum computing device in the step of receiving is based on data acquired by at least one sensor. The additional element elaborates on the received data, thus further amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites the data indicative of the digital twin comprising data indicative of an estimation of an anomaly and a non- anomaly of the physical system. The additional element elaborates on the data indicative of the digital twin, thus further amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13-15 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockert et al. US Pub No. 2024/0119550 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Stockert”), in view of Ahmadian, M., et al. "Designing a digital twin for quantum key distribution." 2022 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC). IEEE, September 2022. (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmadian”).
Regarding claim 1, Stockert discloses A method for generating data indicative of a digital twin of a physical system (“The subject disclosure relates to a system and method for quantum digital twinning and public safety management.” [P.0001]), the method including the following steps: - receiving, by at least one quantum computing device, data acquirable from the physical system, and - processing, by the at least one quantum computing device, the data acquirable from the physical system to provide the data indicative of the digital twin. (“FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating an example, non-limiting embodiment of a process of a quantum digital twinning system creating a quantum digital twin in accordance with various aspects described herein.” [P.0008])
PNG
media_image1.png
589
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the data indicative of the digital twin comprising data indicative of a reconfiguration of a physical parameter of the physical system; wherein the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter of the physical system is reconfiguration data for adjusting the physical system (“A history of public safety situations is captured as real-time footprint and damage assessment maps represented as a digital twin model. The maps have adjustable (i.e. reconfiguration) time increments (i.e. physical parameters) and can be played back or forward (predicted) for displaying relevant input and all the predicted output.” [P.0075]. Per Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.6 Ln.30], adjustable is interpreted as reconfiguration. And time is interpreted as a physical parameter due to Applicant’s disclosure [Spec. Pg.10 Ln.27].);
wherein the physical parameter has a digital counterpart in the digital twin;
the digital counterpart being reconfigurable (The adjustable time increments (i.e. configurable physical parameters) disclosed by Stockert are interpreted as having a digital counterpart in the digital twin since the physical parameters are included in the digital twin (see Stockert P.0075) and the understanding that “digital twins” are digital counterparts/representations of systems (see Stockert P.0029).);
Stockert fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing comprises using the received data in a performance, by the at least one quantum computing device, of a quantum optimization; wherein an output of the performance of the quantum optimization is the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter of the physical system; and reconfiguring, by an actuator and via sending the actuator a signal based on the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter, the physical parameter.
However, Ahmadian discloses wherein the processing comprises using the received data in a performance, by the at least one quantum computing device, of a quantum optimization; wherein an output of the performance of the quantum optimization is the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter of the physical system (“the QDT (i.e. Quantum Digital Twin) can optimize the QKD (i.e. Quantum Key Distribution) system by adjusting (i.e. reconfiguring) the tunable parameters of the optical components.” Ahmadian [Pg.1 Col.2 P.3]);
and reconfiguring, by an actuator and via sending the actuator a signal based on the data indicative of a reconfiguration of the physical parameter, the physical parameter (“The tunable parameters in the QPC (i.e. Quantum Physical Channel) are related to the polarizer in the QTx (i.e. Quantum Transmitter), as well as the EPC (i.e. Electronic Polarization Controller) and SPDs (i.e. Single Photon Detectors) in QRx (i.e. Quantum Receiver). Armed with measurements gathered from the QPC, the QDT can provide the needed adjustments of QPC’s components for the current QKD system” Ahmadian [Pg.1 Col.2 P.3]);
Stockert and Ahmadian are analogous art as they relate to quantum digital twinning. Stockert discloses a system and method for “creating a quantum digital twinning model for a public safety event” [Abstract], and Ahmadian discloses “[i]n this paper, we design a Quantum Digital Twin (QDT) that models the Quantum Physical Channel (QPC) and shows its application” [Pg.1 Col.1 P.3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stockert’s quantum digital twinning model method/system to include Ahmadian’s disclosed quantum key distribution digital twin design in order “to improve Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) implementations [ ] for secure communications” Ahmadian [Abstract [ ] Pg.1 Col.1 P.1].
Regarding claim 2, Stockert further discloses further including a step of generating the digital twin based on the data indicative of the digital twin. (“method 240 begins at step 241 where the system creates a quantum digital twinning model for a public safety event. A quantum illumination and object detection processes are used to create the quantum digital twinning model” [P.0108])
Regarding claim 6, Stockert further discloses wherein the data received by the at least one quantum computing device in the step of receiving is based on data acquired by at least one sensor. (“The quantum digital twinning system combines building information 201 and quantum illumination data 202 (quantum three-dimensional (3D) imaging, video, acoustic, motion, classical images, etc.) from mobile devices, drones, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors” [P.0029])
Regarding claim 13, Stockert further discloses A device or system comprising means adapted to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 (“One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include a device having a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations of: creating a quantum digital twinning model for a public safety event” [P.0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Stockert further discloses At least one quantum computing device configured to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 (“FIG. 2A (see below) is a block diagram illustrating an example, non-limiting embodiment of a process 200 of a quantum digital twinning system creating a quantum digital twin in accordance with various aspects described herein.” [P.0029]).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Stockert further discloses A non-transitory computer program product that has instructions which, when the program is executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1 (“One or more aspects of the subject disclosure include a non-transitory, machine-readable medium with executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations” [P.0019]).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockert et al. US Pub No. 2024/0119550 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Stockert”), in view of Ahmadian, M., et al. "Designing a digital twin for quantum key distribution." 2022 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC). IEEE, September 2022. (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmadian”), in further view of Correa-Jullian, Camila, et al. "Exploring quantum machine learning and feature reduction techniques for wind turbine pitch fault detection." Energies 15.8 (2022): 2792. (hereinafter referred to as “CJ”).
Regarding claim 4, Stockert in view of Ahmadian disclose the method of claim 1, Stockert further discloses comprising processing, by at least one computing device, first data acquirable from the physical system ; the at least one computing device being additional to the at least one quantum computing device; the second data being the data acquirable from the physical system received in the step of receiving. (“an initial deployment of quantum/classical networks will require an overlay of quantum network elements and classical network elements where elements may be hybrid quantum / classical, classical and/or quantum only. Quantum computing elements may be adjunct to the digital twinning system.” [P.0106])
Stockert fails to specifically disclose reduce a dimensionality of the first data. However, analogous art of CJ discloses reduce a dimensionality of the first data (“statistical dimensionality reduction methods are commonly used to create diagnostic datasets from multi-sensor systems.” CJ [Pg.13 Sec.4.2.2])
CJ is analogous art as it relates to physical system quantum modeling. CJ discloses a paper which “addresses the application of quantum kernel classification models for fault detection in wind turbine systems (WTSs)” [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum digital twin method of Stockert to include reducing dimensionality of data, as CJ discloses, since it’s “useful for analyzing systems with multiple sensors to identify representative features extracted from the original sensor data and thus disregarding uninformative sensor variables.” CJ [Pg.13 Sec.4.2.2].
Regarding claim 8, Stockert in view of Ahmadian disclose the method of claim 1, but fail to specifically disclose the data indicative of the digital twin comprising data indicative of an estimation of an anomaly and a non-anomaly of the physical system (2).
However, analogous art of CJ discloses the data indicative of the digital twin comprising data indicative of an estimation of an anomaly and a non-anomaly of the physical system (“The model is trained based on data considered to be operating at normal states to then be evaluated for new unseen data. Depending on the network's reconstruction error, an adaptive threshold is defined to determine whether the system is operating under normal or anomalous conditions.” CJ [Pg.3 P.1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum digital twin method of Stockert to include anomaly detection, as CJ discloses, in order “to reduce operating expenditures (OPEX) related to unexpected maintenance events” CJ [Pg.1 Sec.1].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockert et al. US Pub No. 2024/0119550 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Stockert”), in view of Ahmadian, M., et al. "Designing a digital twin for quantum key distribution." 2022 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC). IEEE, September 2022. (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmadian”), in further view of Suhail, Sabah, et al. "Trustworthy digital twins in the industrial internet of things with blockchain." IEEE Internet Computing 26.3 (2021): 58-67 (hereinafter referred to as “Suhail”).
Regarding claim 5, Stockert in view of Ahmadian disclose the method of claim 1, Stockert further discloses the at least one computing device being additional to the at least one quantum computing device (see Stockert [P.0106]).
Stockert fails to specifically disclose wherein the data received by the at least one quantum computing device (11) in the step of receiving (120) has been encrypted (111) with post-quantum cryptography by at least one computing device.
However, Suhail discloses wherein the data received by the at least one quantum computing device in the step of receiving has been encrypted with post-quantum cryptography by at least one computing device (“to prepare for the quantum apocalypse, blockchain schemes that inherently support postquantum cryptography, such as IOTA, are adopted in our proposed design” Suhail [Pg.64 Col.2 Quantum Immunity])
Suhail is analogous art as it relates to physical system digital twins. Suhail discloses leveraging “digital twins (DTs) that can draw intelligent conclusions from the data by identifying the faults and recommending precautionary measures ahead of critical events.” [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum digital twin method of Stockert to include post-quantum cryptography, as Suhail discloses, in order to “secure data across multiple participating entities.” Suhail [Pg.64 Col.1 P.2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Orus et al. (Method For Generating Data Indicative of a Digital Twin – US Pub No. 20240193457 A1). “a method (100) for generating data indicative of a digital twin of a physical system (2), the method including the steps oft receiving (120), by at least one classical computing device (11), data acquirable from the physical system (2); and processing (130), by the at least one classical computing device (11), the data acquirable from the physical system (2) to provide the data indicative of the digital twin, the processing (130) comprising digitally computing a quantum-inspired algorithm.” [Abstract]
Cella et al. (Populating Digital Twins For Value Chain Networks – US Pub. No 20210357827 A1). “In embodiments, simulation environments may be constructed using models configured to predict a set of future states. These models may include deep learning, regression models, quantum prediction engines, inference engines, pattern recognition engines, and many other forms of modelling engines that use historical outcomes, current state information, and other inputs to build a future state prediction.” [P.1160]
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights