DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 2/28/2023. The application contains claims 1-20, all examined and rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement with references submitted 10/11/2023, has been considered and entered into the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
While independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are each directed to a statutory category, it recites a series of steps pertaining to distribute tasks, which appears to be directed to an abstract idea (mental process).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include certain methods of organizing human activities; a mental processes; and mathematical concepts, (2019 PEG)
STEP 1.
Per Step 1, the claims are determined to include process, manufacture, and machine as in independent Claim 1, 8, and 15, and in the therefrom dependent claims. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
At step 2A, prong 1, The invention is directed to identifying features within received data that could be an indication of the probability of occurrence of a machine failure based on analyzed historic data which is akin to Mental Process (see Alice), As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“determining, a first quantum operation associated with a first SPQR; determining a second quantum operation associated with a second SPQR, wherein the first quantum operation is different from the second quantum operation” (Mental process, observation, evaluation and judgment).
The claim recites additional elements as
“A computer-implemented method for providing integration of Special Purpose Quantum Resources (SPQRs), the computer-implemented method comprising:, a computing system” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h)));
“receiving a request to perform the first quantum operation and the second quantum operation” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g));
“causing the first SPQR to perform the first quantum operation” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C));
“receiving a first response from the first SPQR” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g))
“wherein the first response comprises a first output associated with the first quantum operation” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h));
“transmitting the first response to the second SPQR” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g))
“causing the second SPQR to perform the second quantum operation” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C))
“receiving a second response from the second SPQR” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g)),
“wherein the second response comprises a second output associated with the second quantum operation, thereby providing integration of the first SPQR and the second SPQR” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"). Thus, under Step 2A of the Mayo framework, the Examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B.
Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" (WURC) in the related arts.
The instant application includes in Claim 1 additional steps to those deemed to be abstract idea(s).
When taken the steps individually, these steps are:
“A computer-implemented method for providing integration of Special Purpose Quantum Resources (SPQRs), the computer-implemented method comprising:, a computing system (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2));
“receiving a request to perform the first quantum operation and the second quantum operation” (Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
“causing the first SPQR to perform the first quantum operation” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C));
“receiving a first response from the first SPQR” (Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
“wherein the first response comprises a first output associated with the first quantum operation” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h));
“transmitting the first response to the second SPQR” (Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
“causing the second SPQR to perform the second quantum operation” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C));
“receiving a second response from the second SPQR” (Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)); “wherein the second response comprises a second output associated with the second quantum operation, thereby providing integration of the first SPQR and the second SPQR” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as receiving, and extracting are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for analyzing model operations or updating the model that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically
recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device that is recited in an abstract level and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
Claim 8 recites a system comprising “one or more memories”, and “at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations” configured to perform the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “one or more memories”, and “at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with “one or more memories”, and “at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations” is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 8 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Claim 15 recites a system comprising “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations” configured to perform the same method as set forth in claim 1, the added element of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations” do not transform the judicial exception into a practical application because they are tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. The additional elements are also not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the action of implementing the method on a general purpose computer with “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations” is tantamount to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception to a computer.
Claim 15 is therefore rejected according to the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are the same analogy and rejected using similar analysis as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
The dependent claims, when considered individually and as a whole, likewise do not provide "significantly more" than the abstract idea for similar reasons as the independent claim.
claims 2 disclose “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to the determining the first quantum operation, receiving first metadata from a first computer program on the first SPQR” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)); and “wherein the determining the first quantum operation associated with the first SPQR comprises determining the first quantum operation associated with the first SPQR based at least on the first metadata”(Mental Process). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 3 disclose “computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting, to the first computer program, a first request to perform the first quantum operation using the first SPQR” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)), “wherein the first request comprises a first identifier associated with the first quantum operation and at least one first input parameter in the request; and wherein the receiving the first response from the first SPQR comprises receiving the first response from the first computer program” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 4 disclose “prior to the determining the second quantum operation, receiving second metadata from a second computer program on the second SPQR” (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)); and wherein the determining the second quantum operation associated with the second SPQR comprises determining the second quantum operation associated with the second SPQR based at least on the second metadata” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 5 disclose “method of claim 4, further comprising: transmitting, to the second computer program, a second request to perform the second quantum operation using the second SPQR (insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g) that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional activity, sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)), wherein the second request comprises a second identifier associated with the second quantum operation and at least one second input parameter associated with the first response from the first SPQR; and wherein the receiving the second response from the second SPQR comprises receiving the second response from the second computer program.” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 6 disclose “wherein the first SPQR or the second SPQR comprises a quantum computer with a quantum hardware or a quantum-inspired device with a specialized hardware” (“Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process”, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea, claims 7 disclose “computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first quantum operation is incompatible with the second SPQR or the second quantum operation is incompatible with the first SPQR” (description of data, which is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and did not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims which impose additional limitations also fail to claim patent eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 ; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
For at least these reasons, the claimed inventions of each of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20,are directed or indirect to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadashikelayeh et al . [US 2018/0091440 A1, hereinafter D1] in view of JUBINSKI et al . [US 2021/0004277 A1, hereinafter D2].
With regard to Claim 1,
D1 teach a computer-implemented method for providing integration of Special Purpose Quantum Resources (SPQRs) (¶60, “systems and methods for facilitating quantum computing in a distributed environment”, ¶32, “using a digital computer to generate and direct a computational task to a quantum computing resource comprising at least one quantum computer over a network, wherein the digital computer comprises at least one computer processor and at least one computer memory”, ¶¶58-59, “present disclosure provides systems and methods that may allow shared or distributed access to quantum computing resources”), the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system, a first quantum operation associated with a first SPQR (¶72, “translate the request in the queue into one or more quantum machine instructions”, ¶82, “ cluster manager may be programmed or configured to translate the request into quantum machine instructions”, ¶84, “translating into quantum machine instructions comprises determination of a number of qubits and/or determination of a quantum operator”, ¶83, “divide the computational task into two or more computational components”);
determining a second quantum operation associated with a second SPQR, wherein the first quantum operation is different from the second quantum operation (¶83, “two or more computational components”, ¶84, “two or more computational components are executed by the quantum computer sequentially, in parallel, or both thereof”, ¶101, different quantum resources);
receiving a request to perform the first quantum operation and the second quantum operation (¶71, “system may include a gateway programmed or configured to receive a request over the network. The request may comprise a computational task”, ¶74, “a gateway that may be programmed or configured to receive a request from a user. The request may comprise a computational task”);
causing the first SPQR to perform the first quantum operation (¶72, “queuing unit programmed or configured to store and order the request in one or more queues. The system may comprise a cluster manager programmed or configured to create an instance/container (also “worker” herein) to (1) translate the request in the queue into one or more quantum machine instructions, (2) deliver the one or more quantum machine instructions to the quantum computer over the network to perform the computational task, and (3) receive one or more solutions from the quantum computer”, ¶82, “cluster manager delivers the quantum machine instructions to a quantum processor to perform the computational task”);
receiving a first response from the first SPQR, wherein the first response comprises a first output associated with the first quantum operation (¶72, “queuing unit programmed or configured to store and order the request in one or more queues … (3) receive one or more solutions from the quantum computer”);
causing the second SPQR to perform the second quantum operation (¶84, “ two or more computational components are executed by the quantum computer sequentially, in parallel, or both thereof”, ¶72, “queuing unit programmed or configured to store and order the request in one or more queues … (1) translate the request in the queue into one or more quantum machine instructions, (2) deliver the one or more quantum machine instructions to the quantum computer over the network to perform the computational task”); and
receiving a second response from the second SPQR, wherein the second response comprises a second output associated with the second quantum operation, thereby providing integration of the first SPQR and the second SPQR (¶72, “queuing unit programmed or configured to store and order the request in one or more queues … (3) receive one or more solutions from the quantum computer”, ¶85, “cluster manager is programmed or configured to aggregate solutions of the two or more computational components”).
D1 does not explicitly teach transmitting the first response to the second SPQR.
D2 teach A computer-implemented method for providing integration of [analytic computer environment], the computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, by a computing system, a first quantum operation associated with a first [analytic computer environment] (¶64, “analytic workflows may identify one or more analytic applications to be executed (i.e., execution application information) and one or more hosts (e.g., one or more analytic machines”, ¶31, “execution application information identifying the analytic application to be executed, execution host information identifying the host to execute the application”);
determining a second [analytic application execution] quantum operation associated with a second [analytic computer environment], wherein the first quantum operation is different from the second quantum operation (¶28, “one or more analytics computing environments”, ¶29, “one or more analytics computing environments 112-a may be geographically separated (e.g., separate physical locations, etc.) and/or virtually separated (e.g., separate network domains, etc.) and may be provided by a variety of cloud computing providers (e.g., Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, Google Compute Engine, etc.), each implementing a different access protocol” ¶64, “analytic workflows may identify one or more analytic applications to be executed (i.e., execution application information) and one or more hosts (e.g., one or more analytic machines”, ¶31, ¶69, “analytic application A“, “analytic application B“);
receiving a request to perform the first quantum operation and the second quantum operation (¶137, “at step 610, the executive service application 122 may receive a request to execute a workflow”, ¶139, “at step 630, C&C service application 120 may receive a request to execute an application”);
causing the first [analytic computer environment] to perform the first quantum operation (¶30, “ analytics computing environments 112-a may be configured to execute the one or more analytic applications, in response to the one or more native access requests to execute an analytic application”, ¶142, “request execution of the application. For example, for each analytic application to be executed in an analytic workflow, such as, analytic workflow 358, the C&C service application 120 may request execution of the analytic application (e.g., analytic application A, etc.) by transmitting a native access request to analytics computing environment identified”, ¶106, “the C&C service application 120 may transmit a native access request to the analytics computing environment 112-2 utilizing the second native protocol that is specific to analytics computing environment 112-2. The native request may include the previously discussed execution information to execute the analytic application A”);
receiving a first response from the first [analytic computer environment], wherein the first response comprises a first output associated with the first quantum operation (¶31, “execution output information identifying the data that is output by the analytic application”, ¶106, “analytics computing environment 112-2 may transmit a native access response to the C&C service application 120 indicating the completion of the execution of analytic application A”, ¶104, “ execution output information identifying execution result data 392”);
transmitting the first response to the second [analytic computer environment] (¶71, “generated intermediate data (e.g., artifact data 1 372, artifact data 2 374, artifact data3 376) may be first transferred to the knowledge datastore 110 and then transferred back to the host executing analytic application D”, ¶¶109-110, “the adapter component 224 to request the transfer of execution results data 392 identified by the execution input information to the analytics computing environment 112-1”, ¶38, “ adapter component 224 may also be configured to provide the previously received, stored, and/or mapped analytics data to the one or more analytics applications executing in the analytics computing environments “);
causing the second [analytic computer environment] to perform the second quantum operation (¶121, “ C&C service application 120 may transmit a native access request to the analytics computing environment 112-3 utilizing the third native access protocol that is specific to analytics computing environment 112-3 to execute analytic application D”, ¶30, “ analytics computing environments 112-a may be configured to execute the one or more analytic applications, in response to the one or more native access requests to execute an analytic application”); and
receiving a second response from the second [analytic computer environment], wherein the second response comprises a second output associated with the second quantum operation, thereby providing integration of the first [analytic computer environment] and the second [analytic computer environment] (¶121, “analytics computing environment 112-3 may transmit a native access response to the C&C service application 120 indicating the completion of the execution of analytic application D”, ¶119, “execution output information identifying execution result data”, ¶5, “ generating one or more native access requests to execute the analytic applications at one or more analytics computing environments, and transmitting one or more native access requests to the one or more analytics computing environment, where at least two native access requests are configured for different access protocols”, ¶¶28-29, “one or more analytics computing environments 112-a may be geographically separated (e.g., separate physical locations, etc.) and/or virtually separated (e.g., separate network domains, etc.) and may be provided by a variety of cloud computing providers (e.g., Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services, Google Compute Engine, etc.), each implementing a different access protocol …”).
D1 and D2 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from a similar field of endeavor of coordinating execution across multiple backends and passing intermediate results between different execution environments. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 resulting in resolutions as disclosed by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify D1 as described above to reduce integration complexity and improve interoperability. This is simply combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
With regard to Claim 2,
D1-D2 teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to the determining the first quantum operation, receiving first metadata from a first computer program on the first SPQR (D1, ¶78, “status of a worker or a quantum computing resource (e.g., availabilities, reading, writing, queuing, algorithms to be executed, algorithms having been performed, and timestamps) are stored in the database 131”, D2, ¶127, “generate and/or update provenance data represented as provenance class information (provenance class information 512-1, 512-2, 512-3, and 512-4) for each analytic application execution, based at least partially on the execution information”, ¶129, “provenance parameters information identifying execution parameters of the analytic application, the provenance execution inputs information identifying the execution inputs of the analytic application, and/or provenance execution outputs information”, ¶133, “provided in response to one or more native access request requesting for provenance class information”, ¶31, “execution information may include, without limitation, execution identifier information (e.g., an alpha-numeric identifier or value, etc.) that identifies the instance of analytic application execution, execution application information identifying the analytic application to be executed, execution host information identifying the host to execute the application, execution parameters information “); and
wherein the determining the first quantum operation associated with the first SPQR comprises determining the first quantum operation associated with the first SPQR based at least on the first metadata (D1, ¶100, “Intelligent algorithms for decomposition and distribution may be dynamic and problem dependent “, “The intelligent algorithms may have access to information about the size restrictions, capacity, and best-case performance modes of each of the available quantum and classical computing resources”, ¶82, “translate the request into quantum machine instructions”, D2, ¶128, “provenance may then be used to provide insight into the trustworthiness of the generated analytic data”, ¶93, “executive service application 122 may be configured to check status 410”, ¶98, “After the executive service application 122 determines … initiate a session 412 for the execution”, ¶54, “translate or convert at least some of the C&C requests received from executive service application 122 into one or more corresponding native access requests for one or more specific analytics computing environments (e.g., analytics computing environment 112-1, 112-1, 112-3, etc.) based at least partially on the execution information (e.g., execution application information identifying the analytic application to be executed, execution host information identifying the analytic computing environment to execute analytic application) in a corresponding C&C request”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 3,
D1-D2 teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
transmitting, to the first computer program, a first request to perform the first quantum operation using the first SPQR, wherein the first request comprises a first identifier associated with the first quantum operation and at least one first input parameter in the request (D1, ¶71, “system may include a gateway programmed or configured to receive a request over the network. The request may comprise a computational task”, “a request may comprise a dataset”, ¶34, “request is generated using an application programming interface (API)”, D2, ¶31, “execution identifier information (e.g., an alpha-numeric identifier or value, etc.) that identifies the instance of analytic application execution“, “execution parameters information identifying the parameters for the analytic application to be executed”, ¶104, “The C&C request may include execution information and execution session information identifying the session associated with the execution of analytic application A. The execution information may include, without limitation, execution identifier information … execution parameters information identifying any parameters for the analytic application A to be executed …”, ¶142, “ transmitting a native access request to analytics computing environment”, ¶106); and
wherein the receiving the first response from the first SPQR comprises receiving the first response from the first computer program (D1, ¶72, “queuing unit programmed or configured to store and order the request in one or more queues … (3) receive one or more solutions from the quantum computer”, ¶80, “communicate computed solutions to those instances from the quantum computer back to the user through the gateway”, ¶106, “analytics computing environment 112-2 may transmit a native access response …”, ¶108, “C&C service application 120 may transmit a C&C response to the workflow component 312 indicating the completion of the execution of analytic application“, ¶145, “provide response for completion of execution of the application … C&C service application 120 may transmit a C&C response to the workflow component”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 4,
D1-D2 teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to the determining the second quantum operation, receiving second metadata from a second computer program on the second SPQR (D1, ¶78, “status of a worker or a quantum computing resource (e.g., availabilities, reading, writing, queuing, algorithms to be executed, algorithms having been performed, and timestamps) are stored in the database 131”, D2, ¶127, “generate and/or update provenance data represented as provenance class information (provenance class information 512-1, 512-2, 512-3, and 512-4) for each analytic application execution …”, ¶129, “provenance instance information for each analytic application execution may include … parameters information identifying execution parameters of the analytic application, the provenance execution inputs information identifying the execution inputs of the analytic application, and/or provenance execution outputs information identifying the execution outputs”, ¶133, “ provided in response to one or more native access request requesting for provenance class information”); and
wherein the determining the second quantum operation associated with the second SPQR comprises determining the second quantum operation associated with the second SPQR based at least on the second metadata (D1, ¶100, “The intelligent algorithms may have access to information about the size restrictions, capacity, and best-case performance modes of each of the available quantum and classical computing resources”, ¶96, “intelligently decide how to distribute the decomposed tasks between a plurality of classical computation resources and quantum-ready computation services”D2, ¶64, “ analytic workflows may identify one or more analytic applications to be executed (i.e., execution application information) and one or more hosts”, ¶¶93-97, “ check status 410 of the C&C service application 120, the one or more analytics computing environments 112-a (e.g., analytics computing environment 112-2, 112-1, and 112-3)”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 5,
D1-D2 teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
transmitting, to the second computer program, a second request to perform the second quantum operation using the second SPQR, wherein the second request comprises a second identifier associated with the second quantum operation and at least one second input parameter associated with the first response from the first SPQR (D1, ¶98, “ (1) Breaking down (e.g., decomposing) a given problem into sub-problems … (3) Distributing tasks between the classical and quantum- ready services 603 and 604, respectively, accordingly; (4) Collecting solutions of the sub-problems … (5) Reducing the original computational tasks using the collected solutions to sub-problems … otherwise, the system may repeat operation (1) for the remaining portion of the reduced problem”, D2, ¶31, “execution information may include, without limitation, execution identifier information (e.g., an alpha-numeric identifier or value, etc.) that identifies the instance of analytic application execution …”, ¶109, “analytic application B to be executed, execution input information identifying execution result data 392, and/or execution output information “, ¶119, “execution parameters information identifying any parameters …”, ¶66, “execution input (i.e., source data, modified source data, and/or artifact data) and/or execution output (i.e., modified source data and/or artifact data) dependences”, ¶110, “request the transfer of execution results data 392 identified by the execution input information to the analytics computing environment 112-1”) ; and
wherein the receiving the second response from the second SPQR comprises receiving the second response from the second computer program (D1, (¶72, “queuing unit programmed or configured to store and order the request in one or more queues … (3) receive one or more solutions from the quantum computer”, ¶80, “communicate computed solutions”, D2, ¶121, “analytics computing environment 112-3 may transmit a native access response …”, ¶123, “the C&C service application 120 may transmit a C&C response to the workflow component 312 indicating the completion of the execution”, ¶145, “transmit a C&C response to the workflow component 312 to indicate the completion of the execution of the analytic application”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 6,
D1-D2 teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first SPQR or the second SPQR comprises a quantum computer with a quantum hardware or a quantum-inspired device with a specialized hardware (D1, ¶101, “non-classical computers may comprise quantum computers, hybrid quantum computers, quantum-type computers, or other computers that are not classical computers. Examples of non-classical computers may include, but are not limited to, Hitachi Ising solvers, coherent Ising machines based on optical parameters, and other solvers”, ¶64, “any type of quantum computers may be suitable for the technologies disclosed herein. Examples of quantum computers include, but are not limited to, …”, D2, ¶149, “One or more processors 704 may each be a graphics processing unit (GPU). In an embodiment, a GPU is a processor that is a specialized electronic circuit designed to process mathematically intensive applications”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 7,
D1-D2 teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first quantum operation is incompatible with the second SPQR or the second quantum operation is incompatible with the first SPQR (D1, ¶73, “system may comprise an interface for a user. In some embodiments, the interface may comprise an application programming interface (API). The interface may provide a programmatic model that abstracts away (e.g., by hiding from the user) the internal details (e.g., architecture and operations) of the quantum computer”, “the interface may minimize a need to update the application programs in response to changing quantum hardware. In some embodiments, the interface may remain unchanged when the quantum computer has a change in internal structure”, D2, ¶29, “ each implementing a different access protocol”, ¶59, “second native access protocol that is different than the first native access protocol”, ¶62, “third native access protocol that is different than the first and second native access protocols”, ¶54, “translate or convert at least some of the C&C requests received from executive service application 122 into one or more corresponding native access requests for one or more specific analytics computing environments”). The same motivation to combine for claim 1 equally applies for current claim.
With regard to Claim 8,
Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1; therefore is rejected under similar rationale. D1-D2 further teach one or more memories, at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the memories and configured to perform operations See at least D1, claim 15, ¶32, ¶¶35-36, D2, ¶6, ¶148, ¶156.
With regard to Claim 9,
Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 2; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 10,
Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 3; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 11,
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 4; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 12,
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 5; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 13,
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 6; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 14,
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 7; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 15,
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1; therefore is rejected under similar rationale. D1-D2 further teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations See at least D1, claim 15, ¶20, ¶28, ¶110, ¶210 ¶32, ¶¶35-36, D2, Claim 16, ¶¶6-7, ¶148, ¶156.
With regard to Claim 16,
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 17,
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 18,
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 4; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 19,
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 5; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
With regard to Claim 20,
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 6; therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 20240354614 filed by Vacon et al. that disclose the ability to distribute tasks using different SPQRs See at least ¶37, “Some embodiments of quantum distributed systems 102 according to the present teaching have mechanisms to ensure that qubits are accessed with a latency that is compatible with the particular application”, ¶77-80.
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action 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. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD whose telephone number is (303)297-4285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-6:00pm MT.
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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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.
/MOHAMED ABOU EL SEOUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148