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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the original filing of 01/14/2023. Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Generalization of the Architecture for Jordon Matrix.” and should be “Jordan” Paragraph [0067]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 4-6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims contain numerals in parenthesis that identify claims elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 recites the limitations
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The limitations of “elementary quantum gates including Pauli operators and Singleton ladder operators; said Pauli operators and said Singleton ladder operators are operatively combined to form a Jordan Canonical form-based representation suitable for simulating large quantum matrices, specially structured matrices such as symmetric, and Toeplitz matrix.”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification such as pages 12 and 14, 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., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. 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.
Step 2A – Prong 2: the claim recites no additional element and therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites the limitations
2A – Prong 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
474
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “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., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. 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.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9 recites the additional elements:
“storing estimated spectrum on a QRAM after the quantum measurement of ancillary qubits on basis vectors which give the estimated eigenvalues.” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“storing estimated spectrum on a QRAM after the quantum measurement of ancillary qubits on basis vectors which give the estimated eigenvalues.” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites the limitations
2A – Prong 1:
“said multiplier (305) for multiplying first data entry t(0) with identity operator generated by block (302), whereby rest entries are sequentially processed and multiplied with Jordan gates produced by block (303) using the multiplier (304)” “generating approximate unitary operator
PNG
media_image2.png
26
98
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hamiltonian simulator (308) for performing quantum simulation for”
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification such as page 16 equation 5 and page 17, 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., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. 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.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 10 recite the additional elements:
“a Toeplitz data-sampler (301) for storing input Toeplitz symbols on a quantum register and sending the entries to multipliers (304, 305) sequentially to process further”, “adder (306) to add outputs of the multipliers (304, 305) for processing as a Toeplitz-structured Hamiltonian (307), “quantum phase estimator block (310), together with an oracle (309) for performing quantum phase estimations involving sub-systems such as state initializer (310-1), Hadamard operators (310-b), control-U rotations block (310-c), IQFT-circuit (310-d), and quantum measurement (310-e), wherein the estimated spectrum is stored on a quantum register (311)” The limitations merely apply the abstract idea in a particular field of use, (namely quantum system). Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not constitute a meaningful limitation and is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“a Toeplitz data-sampler (301) for storing input Toeplitz symbols on a quantum register and sending the entries to multipliers (304, 305) sequentially to process further”, “adder (306) to add outputs of the multipliers (304, 305) for processing as a Toeplitz-structured Hamiltonian (307); Hamiltonian simulator (308) for performing quantum simulation for”, “quantum phase estimator block (310), together with an oracle (309) for performing quantum phase estimations involving sub-systems such as state initializer (310-1), Hadamard operators (310-b), control-U rotations block (310-c), IQFT-circuit (310-d), and quantum measurement (310-e), wherein the estimated spectrum is stored on a quantum register (311)” The limitations merely apply the abstract idea in a particular field of use, (namely quantum system). Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not constitute a meaningful limitation and is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
Claim 2 recites
PNG
media_image3.png
388
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
Claim 3 recites
PNG
media_image4.png
754
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the quantum circuit for the Canonical form based 4×4 Jordan system involving the elementary Pauli operators and singleton ladder operators includes input sub-system (101-104) for inputting digits (0/1) for the 2×2 subsequent quantum gates; quantum subsystem having a 2×2 Pauli-X quantum gate(105), singleton operators (106, 107) and a Pauli-Y quantum gate (108); tensor sub-system having tensor operator blocks (109-111) to perform tensor operations among the inputs and generate output” The limitations merely apply the abstract idea in a particular field of use, (namely quantum system). Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not constitute a meaningful limitation and is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the tensor operator blocks (109-111) includes a first tensor operator block (109) to perform the tensor operation between Pauli-X gate (105) and singleton operator (106); a second tensor block (110) to perform the tensor operation between two singleton operators (106, 107); and a third tensor operator block (111) to perform the tensor operation between the singleton operator (107) and the Pauli-Y gate (108)” The limitations merely apply the abstract idea in a particular field of use, (namely quantum system). Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not constitute a meaningful limitation and is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the quantum circuit further includes an adder circuit (112) to adds output of the tensor product from the first and the second tensor blocks (109) and (111); and a subtractor block (113) to receive output of the adder block (112) in positive input port, and output of the second tensor block (110) in negative input port, wherein output of the subtractor block (113) produces the 4×4 Jordan-form quantum composite gate J.sub.4.” The limitations merely apply the abstract idea in a particular field of use, (namely quantum system). Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not constitute a meaningful limitation and is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
Claim 7 recites
PNG
media_image5.png
486
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).”
Claim 8 recites “wherein the Toeplitz matrix applicable for wireless communications including wireless channel (such as ISI channel), sensor array, radar etc. represented through sparse representation using the Jordan canonical structure facilitates the Toeplitz system representation and effective Hamiltonian simulation for complexity efficient spectrum estimation.” The limitations merely apply the abstract idea in a particular field of use, (namely quantum system). Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not constitute a meaningful limitation and is insufficient to render the claims patent-eligible.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights