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
This action is responsive to the following communication: Continuation of Application No. PCT/CN2022/116170 filed Aug. 31, 2022.
Claims 1-12 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 2 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “obtaining all fully connected subgraphs of the binding interaction graph according to the sampling result, and sorting all the fully connected subgraphs according to weights to obtain a fully connected subgraph with a maximum weight.” However, the specification of the current application fails to show concrete algorithms, bounds and parameter ranges to achieve the function. To achieve this function without detailed heuristics/constraints requires undue experimentation.
Independent claim 1 recites “performing Gaussian boson sampling.” However, the specification of the current application fails to show sampling conditions to achieve the function. To achieve this function without uncertainty requires undue experimentation.
Independent claim 2 recites “the arbitrary unitary operation module is controlled by a programmable arbitrary waveform generator; the quantum processing unit module controls the squeezed states to be continuously evolved in the circulating light path until a high-dimensional unitary operation in any mode is completed.” However, the specification of the current application fails to show the arbitrary unitary is capable of implementing the high dimensional global unitary across any model, including how many round trips, phase schedules, bandwidth/latency limits and loss budgets that permit the function. Therefore, it requires undue experimentation to achieve the claimed feature.
Dependent claims 3-12 fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 2, therefore are also rejected.
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.
Claim 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “different distances between pharmacophores.” It is not clear how the “distance” is defined and measured, although it is possible that the distance may be based on Euclidean on specific pharmacophore coordinates.
Independent claim 1 recites “weight” “maximum weight” It is not clear how the “weight” is defined and measured.
Independent claim 1 recites “decomposing the adjacency matrix.” However, it is not clear what decomposition algorithm is applied. It is not clear how the decomposition parameters map to inputs.
Independent claim 2 recites “high-dimensional unitary operation in any mode is completed.” This result driven feature lacks definite structure boundaries and control algorithm that define how “any mode” is completed.
Independent claim 2 recites “controlling a quantum logic gate sequence of the screening platform.” This result driven feature lacks definite structure boundaries and control algorithm that define how “quantum logic gate sequence” control is completed.
Independent claim 2 recites “controlling a quantum logic gate sequence of the screening platform.” This result driven feature lacks definite structure boundaries and control algorithm that define how “quantum logic gate sequence” control is completed.
Independent Claim 2 recites the limitation “the squeezed states.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent Claim 4 recites the limitation " the electro-optical modulator ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 2 recites two electro-optical modulators. Therefore, it is not clear which modulator claim 4 is referring to.
Dependent claims 3-12 fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 2, therefore are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradler et al. (hereinafter Bradler) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0177374.
With respect to independent claim 2, Bradler teaches a reverse virtual screening platform based on programmable quantum computing, comprising a light source preparation module, a quantum processing unit module, a detection module, and a computer (see e.g., Fig. 3, 7 and Para [14][15][31]-[39] – “FIG. 3 shows a schematic of a quantum processing unit (QPU) 300 implemented on an integrated photonic circuit to perform GBS, according to an embodiment. The QPU 300 includes an input state generator 310 and an interferometer 320 that are fabricated in a substrate 305 (also referred to as a platform 305). The substrate can include one or more of: silicon, silicon oxide (e.g., silicon dioxide), silicon nitride, etc. The input state generator 310 includes a power division module (PDM) 312, a squeezer 314, a filter 316, and an optional displacement module 318 (to generate displaced squeezed light). The interferometer 320 includes input ports 322, a network of RBSs 325 to perform unitary transformation, and output ports 328.”);
the light source preparation module comprises a mode-locked pulse laser light source, an acoustic optical modulator, and a nonlinear crystal (see e.g., Para [44]-[46] – “output pump light beams (i.e., light beams that drive the squeezer 314) may be continuous, pulsed, monochromatic, or a combination of one or more continuous and one or more pulsed inputs at different wavelengths. For example, the squeezer 314 may use a strong continuous drive beam and a weak pulsed beam at another wavelength to generate squeezed light. More details of this scheme to generate squeezed light can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 10,649,307, issued May 12, 2020 and titled “INTEGRATED DEVICES FOR SQUEEZED LIGHT GENERATION,” which is incorporated herein it its entirety”);
pulse laser generated by the mode-locked pulse laser light source is chopped by the acoustic optical modulator, and the nonlinear crystal is pumped to finally obtain a group of single-mode squeezed vacuum states with different squeezing degrees (see e.g., Para [18][34]-[45] – “For example, nonlinear optical components (e.g., the squeezer 314) can be fabricated on a silicon nitride waveguide layer, and the interferometer 320 can be implemented on a silicon layer. In these embodiments, interlayer couplers can be employed to allow the transfer of light between different layers.” ”the squeezer 314 may use a strong continuous drive beam and a weak pulsed beam at another wavelength to generate squeezed light. More details of this scheme to generate squeezed light can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 10,649,307, issued May 12, 2020 and titled “INTEGRATED DEVICES FOR SQUEEZED LIGHT GENERATION,” which is incorporated herein it its entirety. In this case, the PDM 312 allows bichromatic inputs to be appropriately routed based on the operation of the squeezer 314. “);
the single-mode squeezed vacuum states are delivered into the quantum processing unit module (see e.g., Fig. 3 Para [31]-[38] – “a quantum processing unit (QPU) 300 implemented on an integrated photonic circuit to perform GBS, according to an embodiment. The QPU 300 includes an input state generator 310 and an interferometer 320 that are fabricated in a substrate 305 (also referred to as a platform 305). The substrate can include one or more of: silicon, silicon oxide (e.g., silicon dioxide), silicon nitride, etc. “); the quantum processing unit module is a circulating light path where a polarization beam splitter, a first electro-optical modulator, a polarization delay device, an arbitrary unitary operation module, a second electro-optical modulator, and a time delay module are disposed in sequence (see e.g., Para [31]-[38] – “More details of this scheme to generate squeezed light can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 10,649,307, issued May 12, 2020 and titled “INTEGRATED DEVICES FOR SQUEEZED LIGHT GENERATION,” which is incorporated herein it its entirety.”); the arbitrary unitary operation module is controlled by a programmable arbitrary waveform generator; the quantum processing unit module controls the squeezed states to be continuously evolved in the circulating light path until a high-dimensional unitary operation in any mode is completed, and delivers an evolution-completed squeezed state sequence into the detection module (Bradler does not expressly teach the above feature. However, Bradler teaches general programmable interferometers and programmable unitary transformations. The system disclosed by Bradler supports various encodings such as time, spatial, and polarization. Also, Bradler expressly teaches arbitrary, i.e., programmed, unitary on different modes under electronic control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the above feature - see e.g., Fig. 7 and Para [69]-[80]); the detection module measures a photon number in each mode by a superconducting nanowire single-photon detector, and inputs a measurement result into the computer (see e.g., Para [20]-[30] – “The detection controller 235 can include one or more FPGAs, ASICs, GPUs and/or CPUs. In some embodiments, an optional cryogenic controller 234 can be employed to control the cryogenic system (not shown in FIG. 2) that supports the operation of the detector array 230. A data acquisition system (DAQ) 232 is operatively coupled to the detector array 230 to translate the output signals of the detector array 230 into a series of integers representing photon number readout, which can then be reported to users (e.g., via the user terminal 201).”); and the computer encodes a task to be a sequence of a string of instructions to control the arbitrary waveform generator, thus controlling a quantum logic gate sequence of the screening platform and realizing a programmable function; and the computer is used for performing real-time display, record and analysis on the photon number detected by the single-photon detector ((see e.g., Para [20]-[30] – “The detection controller 235 can include one or more FPGAs, ASICs, GPUs and/or CPUs. In some embodiments, an optional cryogenic controller 234 can be employed to control the cryogenic system (not shown in FIG. 2) that supports the operation of the detector array 230. A data acquisition system (DAQ) 232 is operatively coupled to the detector array 230 to translate the output signals of the detector array 230 into a series of integers representing photon number readout, which can then be reported to users (e.g., via the user terminal 201).”)).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEIYONG WENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1660. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Matthew Ell, can be reached on (571) 270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PEI YONG WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141