DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the claims filed on Jan. 5 th , 2023. A summary of this action: Claims 1-16 have been presented for examination. Claim s 1-16 are objected to because of informalities Claims 9-16 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 Claim 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BMW, “SENSOR POSITIONS OPTIMIZATION - BMW Quantum Computing Challenge”, July 13 th 2021, URL: cs795(dot)cs(dot) odu (dot) edu /papers/210713_UC4_Sensors(dot)pdf in view of Uotila , Valter et al.. New Angles from Right Range: Optimizing Car Sensor Positioning with D-Wave Hybrid Quantum Computers. Dec. 2nd, 2021. GitHub Repo. URL: github(dot)com/valterUo/Quantum-computing-drafts/blob/main/sensor_bmw/main_3D_connecting_Dwave_Leap(dot)ipynb in further view of Quinones, Miguel Paredes, and Catarina Junqueira . "Modeling linear inequality constraints in quadratic binary optimization for variational quantum eigensolver ." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13245 (2020). Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BMW, “SENSOR POSITIONS OPTIMIZATION - BMW Quantum Computing Challenge”, July 13 th 2021, URL: cs795(dot)cs(dot) odu (dot) edu /papers/210713_UC4_Sensors(dot)pdf in view of Uotila , Valter et al.. New Angles from Right Range: Optimizing Car Sensor Positioning with D-Wave Hybrid Quantum Computers. Dec. 2nd, 2021. GitHub Repo. URL: github(dot)com/valterUo/Quantum-computing-drafts/blob/main/sensor_bmw/main_3D_connecting_Dwave_Leap(dot)ipynb in further view of Quinones, Miguel Paredes, and Catarina Junqueira . "Modeling linear inequality constraints in quadratic binary optimization for variational quantum eigensolver ." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13245 (2020), wherein a term has its meaning explained/a showing that a characteristic not disclosed is inherent (MPEP § 2131.01) by Hughes, C., Isaacson, J., Perry, A., Sun, R.F., Turner, J. (2021). What Is a Qubit?. In: Quantum Computing for the Quantum Curious. Springer, Cham as well as National Academy of Engineering 2019. Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2018 Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. This action is non- f inal 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 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Interpretation For limitation (e) in representative claim 1, and similar such limitations, see ¶ 74: “In the variational quantum algorithm (VQA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a quantum computer by computing the exact gradient, Similarly, in the variational quantum-inspired algorithm (VQIA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a classical computer ” – in view of this, VQIAs do not use a quantum computer. Claim Objections Claim s 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independents recite “co-ordinates ”, however this is typically not a hyphenated word, e.g. latitude and longitude are examples of coordinates Independents: “ carrying out total number of iterations ” – missing the article “a” – the Examiner suggests “carrying out a total number…” Independents “a plurality of sensors…each of the plurality of sensors” – there is only a single “plurality” of sensors to refer back to Claim 2 (and its parallel claim) recite: “wherein the quantum computer performs calculations based on the probability of an object's state before it is measured, instead of just 1 s or 0s ;” – the Examiner suggests deleting the “just 1s or 0s”, as POSITA would have recognized that quantum computers use qubits instead of bits (¶ 19), and these dependent claims expressly require that it is executed with a quantum computer Similar objection for parallel Claim 2: “wherein the method (100) is executed through a quantum computer;” – this is an ambiguous phrasing. The Examiner suggests “wherein the method (100) is executed by a quantum computer”. Similar objection for parallel Claim 3 recites “implies” – this is potentially ambiguous as to what exactly is required. The Examiner suggests “wherein when a value of the critical index w k at each of points k is zero represents that the point k is not required in the coverage” – or something like that (see above, i.e. amend independents first, then clean up dependents with expressly clear antecedents that are in a consistent manner) Similar objection for parallel Claim 3 – “ absolutely essential ” – to improve conciseness, the Examiner suggest removing the term “ absolutely ”. To clarify, the Examiner reads this akin to “must”, i.e. if it is one, that point must be covered by a sensor Similar objection for parallel The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the” /”said ”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent . Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues: Independent claims - Singular “weight”, but the context of the claim conveys there are a plurality of weights, wherein each weight corresponds to a point of a plurality of points in a region of interest – to clarify, later recitations refer back to a singular “the weight ”, not a plural. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to make it more clear on antecedent basis, e.g. set forth a plurality of weights, and later refer back to that Independent claims - “each point…each point…” – similar as above, i.e. it appears that these are intended to be the same, but they are not expressly nor disambiguated. Independent claims – limitation a has “the region of interest represent a region” which seems to be duplicative and lacking the conciseness that should be present in a claim, similar with the recitation of “collection of points” as the claim previously recites “each point in a region of interest” which implies its always required (note the “or” in the later recitation) to have a plurality/collection of points. The Examiner suggests amending to improve conciseness and antecedents Claim 3 – “the overall field of view” but this was not previously recited, and see above objections, i.e. the Examiner suggests carefully amending the independent claims to have more clear antecedents for dependent claims to refer back to Claim 3 – “the value” – not previously recited Several of the issues arise to § 112(b) indefiniteness as well – see below Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation – 112(f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a. a sensor information receiving module (301) configured to receive input, including weight assigned for each point in a region of interest, around a targeted autonomous vehicle, possible positions of a plurality of sensors, field of view and price of each of the plurality of sensors; and wherein the weight is critical index w, corresponding to each point k, in the region of interest, and is defined in the interval [0,1]; and wherein the region of interest represent a region or collection of points in the surrounding of the targeted autonomous vehicle, and represented by set of co-ordinates in the surrounding; and wherein the field of view is the collection of points including each of the plurality of sensors at a particular position and orientation in the region of interest around the targeted autonomous vehicle; b. a sensor position calculation module (302) configured to calculate the field of view and price of each specification, based on the received weight of points in the region of interest and possible positions of the each of the plurality of sensors on the targeted autonomous vehicle; and wherein the specification means a specific combination of the plurality of sensor type, position, and the orientation; c. a quantum computing module (303) configured to run a variational quantum algorithm (VQA) and quantum-inspired variational algorithm (VQIA) for each plurality of sensor configuration; and wherein the plurality of sensor configuration is a specific sensor placed at a specific position in a specific orientation; and d. a sensor position optimization module (304) configured to carry out total number of iterations using variational quantum algorithm (VQA) and quantum-inspired variational algorithm (VQIA), and to provide the final optimized plurality of sensor configuration. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon. The above noted claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See fig. 3 and ¶ 77, i.e. there is not sufficient structure clearly linked to each of these modules to perform their respective functions. Furthermore, see ¶ 27: “In the variational quantum algorithm (VQA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a quantum computer by computing the exact gradient. Similarly, in the variational quantum-inspired algorithm (VQIA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a classical computer.” In view of this, the Examiner suggests deleting the apparatus claim, or making it a claim to only one of those two distinct types of computers, wherein the algorithm tied by the specification to that type of computer is the one being executed, for ¶ 27 clearly conveys in one embodiment a purely classical digital computer is used with the “VQIA”, but in the other a quantum computer is used (and this being the main distinction per ¶ 27). Also, see ¶¶ 64, 74, etc. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a) 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. Claim s 9-16 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. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon. See the above § 112(f) invocation and corresponding § 112(b) rejection including the citations to the disclosure in the § 112(b) rejection. See MPEP §2181(IV): “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under section 112(a).” and MPEP 2181(II)(B): “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend upon. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV): “ A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); ” Independents recite “possible positions” – the term “possible” in this context (¶ 81) is an indefinite subjective term over which positions are possible and which are not. The Examiner suggests a better term that is not subjective, e.g. candidate positions, i.e. positions where sensors may be placed in the resulting sensor configuration. Another term would be “ different ” (¶ 5). Dependent claim 6 (and its parallel claim 14) have similar recitations and rejected under similar rationales in view of ¶ 26. Independents recite (claim 1 as representative): “ obtaining the final optimized plurality of sensor configuration ” – the term “optimized” in this context is indefinite, as is the use of “the”, for the claim does not previously recite this element of “the final optimized”, and the claim places no express limitation on what is an optimized sensor configuration. The Examiner suggests amending to more clearly and expressly reflect ¶ 36, i.e. it’s the sensor configuration that minimizes the objective function. Independents recite: “ wherein the field of view is the collection of points ” – this is indefinite, because it expressly requires two distinctly claimed elements to be the same element. See ¶ 54 : “The term 'region of interest' used herein can represent a region surrounding the autonomous vehicle wherein the region of interest includes multiple points that are specified by three co-ordinates. A sensor at a particular position and orientation covers a set of such [i.e. the] points that is called its 'field of view'.” To clarify, the Examiner suggests more expressly conveying the subject matter of ¶ 5, including the plurality of regions of interest (“ regions of interest R = { 1 , .. , k,} ”), and “As a result, one will get fijq as a subset of R.”) as the specification at ¶ 5 provides a mathematical definition of this that is more definite. Independents recite: “wherein the plurality of sensor configuration is a specific sensor placed at a specific position in a specific orientation” – this is indefinite, because it defines a singular specific sensors as a plurality of sensor configurations by the linking term “is”. See ¶ 5, i.e. “The calculation is required to place m different sensors at n distinct positions on a car in such a way that we get maximum possible coverage at minimum possible cost” – the Examiner suggests being more expressly clear. Representative Claim 2 (also see claims 10 and recites the phrase “wherein the quantum computer has the potential to process exponentially more data compared to classical computers”, wherein the term “potential” is a subjective term that renders the claim indefinite because there is no standard provided in the instant disclosure (¶ 66) for POSITA to ascertain the scope of the present claims without relying on their own unrestrained, subjective opinion when practicing the invention. To clarify, the Examiner notes that this is merely the idea of quantum supremacy for a quantum computer, i.e. that for some cases it would process more data than classical computers. At issue for indefiniteness is two-fold: one is the use of the term “potential”, and the second is that quantum supremacy is on a case-by-case basis, i.e. there are countless problems that classical algorithms solve rapidly with large data sets due to efficient classical algorithms, whereas the claim language indicates that, should “potential be removed”, it requires that the quantum computer always does this. The Examiner suggests deleting this limitation, as POSITA would readily know about this concept when a quantum computer was used, i.e. its not even limiting as its inherent in the use of the quantum computer in some select cases depending on the quantum algorithm (e.g. Shor’s algorithm is a common example of such an algorithm). Claims 4 and 12 recite: The method (100) according to Claim 1, wherein the surrounding of the targeted autonomous vehicle is captured using the plurality of sensors ; and wherein the surrounding of the targeted autonomous vehicle is focused using two separate models including front, back, right, left, top and bottom sides to collect surrounding data, to improve the region of interest prediction. This is indefinite for it is ambiguous as to what it means . See ¶¶ 58, 68, 21, 31, which merely use the same language as the claim. At issue is that it requires to focus (i.e. to cause to be concentrated on) using two separate models the front, back, right, left, top and bottom sides – but the claim does not recite, nor does the specification convey , whether this is conveying the sides of the vehicle (e.g. the door panels on the side, the roof of the vehicle as the top, etc.) or if this is conveying the regions of coverage should include the area in front of the vehicle, the region to each side of the vehicle, etc. The Examiner suggests deleting this claim, as the specification does not clarify on this. 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept without significantly more. Step 1 Claim 1 is directed toward s the statutory category of a process. Claim 9 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus. Claims 9 , and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof. Step 2A – Prong 1 The claims recite an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is: Limitation (c) is math calculations in textual form. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “ It 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) ” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). As such, the claims recite a mathematical concept. Step 2A, prong 2 The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d). The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) , including the “ Use 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 ” : The system and various modules of claim 9 are considered as mere instructions to use a computer and generic computer components to perform an abstract idea. To clarify, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for the shift register of Gottschalk, see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for TLI communications, and see the instant specification, e.g. ¶ 74: “In the variational quantum algorithm (VQA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a quantum computer by computing the exact gradient, Similarly, in the variational quantum-inspired algorithm (VQIA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a classical computer” The following limitations are a dding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) : Limitations (a-b) are mere data gathering Limitations (d-f), given their generality, are mere instructions to “apply it” with generic commonplace algorithms to achieve a desired result with no restriction on how this is done, as well as an insignificant computer implementation. To clarify, these do not recite any steps of the algorithms at all. These are also considered as generally linking to a particular technological environment for similar reasons. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “… Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception … Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski , 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp , LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must " transform the nature of the claim " into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B ” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e). To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “ Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law ” See also Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘ directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon"). ” As a point of clarity, RecogniCorp , LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (" Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility " cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “ Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original). The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d). Step 2B The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more. The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) , including the “ Use 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 ” : The system and various modules of claim 9 are considered as mere instructions to use a computer and generic computer components to perform an abstract idea. To clarify, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for the shift register of Gottschalk, see MPEP § 2106.05(f) for TLI communications, and see the instant specification, e.g. ¶ 74: “In the variational quantum algorithm (VQA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a quantum computer by computing the exact gradient, Similarly, in the variational quantum-inspired algorithm (VQIA), the energy expectation value of Hamiltonian is obtained on a classical computer” The following limitations are a dding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g) : Limitations (a-b) are mere data gathering Limitations (d-f), given their generality, are mere instructions to “apply it” with generic commonplace algorithms to achieve a desired result with no restriction on how this is done, as well as an insignificant computer implementation. To clarify, these do not recite any steps of the algorithms at all. These are also considered as generally linking to a particular technological environment for similar reasons. Furthermore, such algorithms are WURC for solving optimization problems with a quantum computer – see: Choi, Jaeho , Seunghyeok Oh, and Joongheon Kim. "The useful quantum computing techniques for artificial intelligence engineers." 2020 international conference on information networking (ICOIN). IEEE, 2020. Abstract and § I, then see §§ II-IV Gacon , Julien, Christa Zoufal , and Stefan Woerner . "Quantum-enhanced simulation-based optimization." 2020 IEEE International conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE). IEEE, 2020 . § I: “We would like to point out that other quantum algorithms have already been investigated in the context of optimization. Common examples are the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) or Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) [10] –[ 13]. These methods are applicable to Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO), where the problem can be mapped to an Ising Hamiltonian .” Harwood, Stuart, et al. "Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers." IEEE transactions on quantum engineering 2 (2021): 1-17. § I ¶¶ 3-4 Quinones, Miguel Paredes, and Catarina Junqueira . "Modeling linear inequality constraints in quadratic binary optimization for variational quantum eigensolver ." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13245 (2020). §§ 2 and 3.1 Sim, Sukin . Algorithm development for near-term quantum computers. Diss. Harvard University, 2021. Abstract ¶¶ 1-2 and see § 1.2 incl.: “…In fact, since the introductions of VQE and QAOA, the variational algorithm framework has been widely applied for various computational tasks, such as quantum simulation, combinatorial optimization, factoring, circuit compilation, generative modeling, data classification, and more5,20,70,95,187,198,207. For a more complete list of existing variational algorithms, we refer the readers to the tables in Ref. 20. In the following subsection, we describe the framework shared by all variational quantum algorithms in order to motivate the ways in which we can build upon and improve current algorithms...” – see remaining parts of § 1 and its subsections to further clarify Tang, Hao, et al. "Teaching quantum information technologies and a practical module for online and offline undergraduate students." arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06548 (2021). Abstract, then see page 3, col. 2, ¶ 2. See fig. 1 as well. Ushijima- Mwesigwa , Hayato , et al. "Multilevel combinatorial optimization across quantum architectures." ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 2.1 (2021): 1-29. §§ 2-2.3 de Zoete , J. "A practical quantum algo- rithm for solving structural optimization problems: a proof-of- concept!. " Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands. §§ 2.4-2.5 In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d): Limitations (a-b) are WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); for additional evidence see the below relied upon BMW reference in the § 102 rejection, along with the Uotila reference (e.g. “ We took the values for these parameters from the data set criticallity_grid which BMW provided. ” in the global parameters section) and other references on this BMW quantum computing challenge, which shows that these datasets were provided by BMW in a quantum computing challenge to multiple parties, i.e. merely claiming retrieving the data in data sets provided by a third-party (BMW) is not an inventive concept. Also, see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I): “ Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer- functionality: … vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons , Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and ” As such, the claims are directed to a mathematical concept without significantly more. Regarding the dependent claims Claim 2 is generally linking to the technological environment of quantum computers as well as part of the mere instructions to do this abstract idea on a computer, followed by math calculations in textual form, and the final limitation is nothing more then simply reciting in a claim the concept of quantum supremacy well-known to POSIT A , i.e. its merely part of generally linking to the tech environment of quantum computers To clarify, see National Academy of Engineering 2019. Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2018 Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Page 6, “Why do we want it?”: “The promise of developing a quantum computer sophisticated enough to execute Shor’s algorithm for large numbers has been a primary motivator for advancing the field of quantum computation. To develop a broader view of quantum computers, however, it is important to understand that they will likely deliver tremendous speed-ups for only specific types of problems .” Claim 3 is rejected under a similar rationale as the mere data gathering of the independents Claim 4 is merely adding more data gathering using generic sensors (¶¶ 81-82 which conveys the generic nature of these sensors) Claim 5 – more mere data gathering that is WURC in view of the above evidence Claim 6 – further clarifying on the math concept Claim 7 – adding a math concept by claiming the math itself, i.e. see ¶¶ 35-36, 62-63, 72, i.e. math calculations in textual form with the math equation of the Hamiltonian in textual form Claim 8 – merely adding a step of mere data gathering to specify how many repetitive calculations are to be done, also WURC – MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “ ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook , 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); ” Claims 10-16 rejected under similar rationales as their representative claims 2-8 As such, the claims are directed towards a mathematical concept without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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. Claim(s) 1 , 3 - 9, 11- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BMW, “SENSOR POSITIONS OPTIMIZATION - BMW Quantum Computing Challenge”, July 13 th 2021, URL: cs795(dot)cs(dot) odu (dot) edu /papers/210713_UC4_Sensors(dot)pdf in view of Uotila , Valter et al.. New Angles from Right Range: Optimizing Car Sensor Positioning with D-Wave Hybrid Quantum Computers. Dec. 2nd, 2021. GitHub Repo. URL: github(dot)com/valterUo/Quantum-computing-drafts/blob/main/sensor_bmw/main_3D_connecting_Dwave_Leap(dot)ipynb in further view of Quinones , Miguel Paredes, and Catarina Junqueira . "Modeling linear inequality constraints in quadratic binary optimization for variational quantum eigensolver ." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13245 (2020). To clarify on the date of the BMW reference, note the date in the URL: “210713”, i.e. July 13 th , 2021. Should further evidence of this being otherwise accessible to the public before the instant effective filing date, see MPEP § 2121.01: “ The statutory phrase "printed publication" has been interpreted to mean that before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art; dissemination and public accessibility are the keys to the legal determination whether a prior art reference was "published." Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1988). ” , so see: BMW. Welcome to the BMW Quantum Computing Challenge! - Supplierthon series . Accessed via the WayBack machine, archive date Nov. 18 th , 2021. URL: crowd-innovation (dot) bmwgroup (dot) com/servlet/hype/IMT?documentTableId=7025714350976893092&userAction=Browse&templateName=&documentId=740c3d47812c470b208a495d85f18206 - Section “Who can join”: “Participation is open to anyone who has interest to apply his or her knowledge and skills on quantum algorithms to real-world problems, and is part of a legal entity. This could be, for instance, a research group, a start-up or an innovative company. A background in quantum computing is very beneficial, but not a strict requirement. Find more details on eligibility in Terms and Conditions” and section “How to participate”: “There are a few steps for you to participate. First register to crowd-innovation.bmwgroup.com. Then choose a use case you want to explore and get working! You can submit your idea for the first round until the 24th of September 2021.” Schuetz, Martin et al. Exploring industrial use cases in the BMW Group Quantum Computing Challenge . July 2021. Amazon Blog. URL: aws (dot) amazon (dot) com/blogs/quantum-computing/exploring-industrial-use-cases-in-the-bmw-quantum-computing-challenge/ - “Today, the BMW Group launched a global open innovation challenge focused on discovering potential quantum computing solutions for real-world use cases: The BMW Group Quantum Computing Challenge…The BMW Group Quantum Computing Challenge is open to participants from research groups and companies worldwide. You can register now, and prepare to submit your entries before the September 24 deadline… We worked closely with BMW to define appropriate use cases for the competition, from the many computational challenges that exist inside complex automotive engineering, manufacturing, and logistics domains … Based on these, the team developed the following four challenges that have the potential to drive real-world innovation for BMW … Use Case: Vehicle Sensor Placement … The challenge is to find an optimal configuration of sensors for a given vehicle such that the vehicle can reliably detect obstacles indifferent driving scenarios – using quantum computing or nature-inspired optimization approaches …To learn more and to register for the challenge, visit the BMW Group’s Open Innovation website . Each use case is distinct and requires unique approaches, so we provide more detailed information on submission requirements foreach of them .” Goeders , James et al. Winners announced in the BMW Group Quantum Computing Challenge . Dec. 9 th , 2021. URL: aws (dot) amazon (dot) com/blogs/quantum-computing/winners-announced-in-the-bmw-group-quantum-computing-challenge/ - “Use Case: Vehicle Sensor Placement: Accenture Modern vehicles come with sensors to help provide safety and convenience to drivers. Vehicles need these sensors to gather data from as large a portion of their surroundings as possible, but each additional sensor adds costs. The goal of this use case was to optimize the positions of sensors to allow for maximum coverage while keeping the required number of sensors as low as possible. The Accenture team provided a holistic workflow for prototyping, from user input all the way to the final result, involving a detailed pipeline for ( i ) the definition of the input data, (ii) pre-processing steps, (iii) optimization of the underlying MaxCover problem and (iv) visualization of the results with an advanced sensor distribution visualization app. For the actual optimization problem, the Accenture team developed a general framework including four classes of algorithmic approaches. While classical custom algorithms delivered the best results today, the framework from the Accenture team comes with plugins for quantum methods to be elaborated in the future… Submissions were received from more than 70 teams globally, spanning from quantum software startups to enterprise companies. The jury evaluated the submissions for comprehensibility, feasibility, scalability, innovation, and benefit for the BMW Group. From the initial submissions, 15 finalists were selected before the final selection of the four winners. ” AWS. Re:Invent . Nov. 29 th -Dec. 3, 2021. URL: d1 (dot) awsstatic (dot) com/events/rei