DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 26 March 2023 for application 18/126,473 filed 26 March 2023.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 11, 18 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.
Claims 4, 11, 18 recite positively handling said black swan even which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “positively handling” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, claims 4, 11, 18 recite most closely matches said captured data which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most closely matches” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, claims 4, 11, 18 recite closest to said captured sensor data and said closest cluster of data which, in light of the “most closely matches” term above, are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction or clarification is required.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “positively handling” as any action associated with said black swan event. Further, Examiner will interpret “most closely matches” and “closest” as any comparison of neurons and/or clusters to captured sensor data and determining closest as appropriate for the comparison.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of comparing said captured sensor data to historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of detecting a black swan event in response to a difference between said captured sensor data and said historical sensor data exceeding a threshold value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum computing device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites performing an action to handle said black swan event which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites capturing sensor data from an environment of said quantum computing device, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum computing device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuits. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – different quantum model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum circuits amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
different quantum model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of comparing said captured sensor data to said historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device stored in a profile, wherein said profile comprises a self-organizing map of neurons, wherein each of said neurons represents environmental conditions experienced within a physical environment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – self-organizing map of neurons. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
self-organizing map of neurons amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of identifying a neuron of said neurons of said self-organizing map of neurons that most closely matches said captured sensor data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining which of said clusters of data of said identified neuron is closest to said captured sensor data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites performing said action to handle said black swan event based on an action associated with said closest cluster of data which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein each of said neurons contains clusters of data, wherein each of said clusters of data is associated with an action in positively handling said black swan event which is simply additional information regarding the self-organizing map, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the self-organizing map do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said sensor data comprises one of the following in the group consisting of sound, pressure, temperature, humidity, vibration, and radiation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the sensor data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the sensor data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of determining whether a quantum processor was being utilized at a same time as said black swan event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... identify said action to be performed to handle said black swan event in response to said quantum processor being utilized at said same time as said black swan event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of updating said machine learning model based on said received user feedback, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum processor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites executing a machine learning model ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receiving user feedback regarding said identified action to be performed to handle said black swan event, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said black swan event comprises one or more of the following in the group consisting of vibrations, sounds, pressure changes, temperature changes, humidity changes, solar flares, and radiation events.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the black swan event and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the black swan event do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of comparing said captured sensor data to historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of detecting a black swan event in response to a difference between said captured sensor data and said historical sensor data exceeding a threshold value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer program product, quantum computing device, one or more computer readable storage mediums, program code, programming instructions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites performing an action to handle said black swan event which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites capturing sensor data from an environment of said quantum computing device, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer program product, quantum computing device, one or more computer readable storage mediums, program code, programming instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the computer program product of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuits. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – different quantum model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum circuits amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
different quantum model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of comparing said captured sensor data to said historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device stored in a profile, wherein said profile comprises a self-organizing map of neurons, wherein each of said neurons represents environmental conditions experienced within a physical environment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – self-organizing map of neurons. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
self-organizing map of neurons amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of identifying a neuron of said neurons of said self-organizing map of neurons that most closely matches said captured sensor data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining which of said clusters of data of said identified neuron is closest to said captured sensor data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites performing said action to handle said black swan event based on an action associated with said closest cluster of data which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein each of said neurons contains clusters of data, wherein each of said clusters of data is associated with an action in positively handling said black swan event which is simply additional information regarding the self-organizing map, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the self-organizing map do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the computer program product of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said sensor data comprises one of the following in the group consisting of sound, pressure, temperature, humidity, vibration, and radiation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the sensor data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the sensor data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device.
The limitation of determining whether a quantum processor was being utilized at a same time as said black swan event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... identify said action to be performed to handle said black swan event in response to said quantum processor being utilized at said same time as said black swan event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of updating said machine learning model based on said received user feedback, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum processor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites executing a machine learning model ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receiving user feedback regarding said identified action to be performed to handle said black swan event, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the computer program product of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said black swan event comprises one or more of the following in the group consisting of vibrations, sounds, pressure changes, temperature changes, humidity changes, solar flares, and radiation events.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the black swan event and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the black swan event do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system.
The limitation of comparing said captured sensor data to historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of detecting a black swan event in response to a difference between said captured sensor data and said historical sensor data exceeding a threshold value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, memory, computer program, quantum computing device, processor, program instructions. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites performing an action to handle said black swan event which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites capturing sensor data from an environment of said quantum computing device, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, memory, computer program, quantum computing device, processor, program instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the system of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuits. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – different quantum model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum circuits amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
different quantum model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system.
The limitation of comparing said captured sensor data to said historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device stored in a profile, wherein said profile comprises a self-organizing map of neurons, wherein each of said neurons represents environmental conditions 6 experienced within a physical environment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – self-organizing map of neurons. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
self-organizing map of neurons amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system.
The limitation of identifying a neuron of said neurons of said self-organizing map of neurons that most closely matches said captured sensor data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of determining which of said clusters of data of said identified neuron is closest to said captured sensor data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites performing said action to handle said black swan event based on an action associated with said closest cluster of data which is simply applying the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites wherein each of said neurons contains clusters of data, wherein each of said clusters of data is associated with an action in positively handling said black swan event which is simply additional information regarding the self-organizing map, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
applying the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
additional information regarding the self-organizing map do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the system of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein said sensor data comprises one of the following in the group consisting of sound, pressure, temperature, humidity, vibration, and radiation.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the sensor data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the sensor data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system.
The limitation of determining whether a quantum processor was being utilized at a same time as said black swan event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of ... identify said action to be performed to handle said black swan event in response to said quantum processor being utilized at said same time as said black swan event, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of updating said machine learning model based on said received user feedback, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum processor. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites executing a machine learning model ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receiving user feedback regarding said identified action to be performed to handle said black swan event, which is simply acquiring data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivadese et al. (US 0221/0201187 A1 – Controlling a Quantum Computing device Based on Predicted Operation Time, hereinafter referred to as “Olivadese”).
Regarding claim 1, Olivadese teaches a method for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device (Olivadese, [0072]-[0078] – teaches pausing the quantum operations during a period of decoherence cause by the external noise), the method comprising:
capturing sensor data from an environment of said quantum computing device (Olivadese, [0053] – teaches external noise sources including heat, vibrations, radiation; Olivadese, [0089] – teaches sensors to acquire environmental data; see also Olivadese, Fig. 3);
comparing said captured sensor data to historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device (Olivadese, [0065]-[0069] - teaches comparing noise data to historic noise data to predict operation time in order to identify decoherence time caused by the noise; Olivadese, [0070] - teaches applying a threshold to the noise data);
detecting a black swan event in response to a difference between said captured sensor data and said historical sensor data exceeding a threshold value (Olivadese, [0065]-[0069] - teaches comparing noise data to historic noise data to predict operation time in order to identify decoherence time caused by the noise; Olivadese, [0070] - teaches applying a threshold to the noise data); and
performing an action to handle said black swan event (Olivadese, [0072]-[0078] – teaches pausing the quantum operations during a period of decoherence cause by the external noise).
Regarding claim 2, Olivadese teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Olivadese further teaches wherein said action comprises one of the following in the group consisting of dynamically increasing a number of shots performed on a current operation, pausing said current operation and waiting for said black swan event to end, repeating a latest operation or a set of operations, dynamically adjusting quantum circuits to shorten their depth, and executing a different quantum model (Olivadese, [0072]-[0078] – teaches pausing the quantum operations during a period of decoherence cause by the external noise).
Regarding claim 5, Olivadese teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Olivadese further teaches wherein said sensor data comprises one of the following in the group consisting of sound, pressure, temperature, humidity, vibration, and radiation (Olivadese, [0053] – teaches external noise sources including heat, vibrations, radiation; Olivadese, [0089] – teaches sensors to acquire environmental data; see also Olivadese, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Olivadese teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Olivadese further teaches wherein said black swan event comprises one or more of the following in the group consisting of vibrations, sounds, pressure changes, temperature changes, humidity changes, solar flares, and radiation events (Olivadese, [0051]-[0053] – teaches external noise sources including heat, vibrations, radiation which can interfere with the operation of the quantum device).
Regarding claim 8, it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Olivadese further teaches a computer program product for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions for (Olivadese, [0061] – teaches a computer with memory storing instructions executed by a processor to perform operations) …
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Olivadese further teaches a system, comprising:
a memory for storing a computer program for handling black swan events on a quantum computing device (Olivadese, [0061] – teaches a computer with memory storing instructions executed by a processor to perform operations); and
a processor connected to said memory, wherein said processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program comprising (Olivadese, [0061] – teaches a computer with memory storing instructions executed by a processor to perform operations) …
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivadese in view of Hazaveh et al. (Impulsive Noise Suppression Methods Based on Time Adaptive Self-Organizing Map, hereinafter referred to as “Hazaveh”).
Regarding claim 3, Olivadese teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. While Olivadese teaches clustering the noise data, Olivadese does not explicitly teach comparing said captured sensor data to said historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device stored in a profile, wherein said profile comprises a self-organizing map of neurons, wherein each of said neurons represents environmental conditions experienced within a physical environment.
Hazaveh teaches comparing said captured sensor data to said historical sensor data of said environment of said quantum computing device stored in a profile, wherein said profile comprises a self-organizing map of neurons, wherein each of said neurons represents environmental conditions experienced within a physical environment (Hazaveh, sections 3-5 – teaches using a self-organizing map to identify noise at the neurons [While Hazaveh teaches image noise, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the process could be applied to any noise data, including the environmental noise of the quantum computing device of Olivadese]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olivadese with the teachings of Hazaveh in order to optimally reduce impulsive noise in the field of identifying noise data and performing actions in response to the noise data (Hazaveh, Abstract – “Removal of noise and restoration of images has been one of the most interesting topics in the field of image processing in the past few years. Existing filter-based methods can remove image noise; however, they cannot preserve image quality and information such as lines and edges. In this article, various classifiers and spatial filters are combined to achieve desirable image restoration. Meanwhile, the time adaptive self-organizing map (TASOM) classifier is more emphasized in our feature extraction and dimensionality reduction approaches to preserve the details during the process, and restore the images from noise. The TASOM was compared with the self-organizing map (SOM) network, and a suitable noise reduction method for images was attempted. As a result, we achieved an optimum method to reduce impulsive noise. In addition, by using this neural network, better noise suppression was achieved. Experimental results show that the proposed method effectively removes impulse noise and maintains color information as well as image details.”).
Regarding claim 4, Olivadese in view of Hazaveh teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 3 as noted above. Hazaveh further teaches wherein each of said neurons contains clusters of data (Hazaveh, sections 4-5 – teaches clustering data at neurons), wherein each of said clusters of data is associated with an action in positively handling said black swan event (Hazaveh, sections 4-5 – teaches that the clusters are used to identify and correct noisy data [While Hazaveh teaches image noise, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the process could be applied to any noise data, including the environmental noise of the quantum computing device of Olivadese]), wherein the method further comprises:
identifying a neuron of said neurons of said self-organizing map of neurons that most closely matches said captured sensor data (Hazaveh, sections 4-5 – teaches that the clusters are used to identify neuron closest to input data [sensor data] based on Euclidean distance);
determining which of said clusters of data of said identified neuron is closest to said captured sensor data (Hazaveh, sections 4-5 – teaches that the clusters are used to identify neuron closest to input data [sensor data] based on Euclidean distance); and
performing said action to handle said black swan event based on an action associated with said closest cluster of data (Hazaveh, sections 4-5 – teaches performing noise suppression based on the determined cluster [While Hazaveh teaches image noise, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the process could be applied to any noise data, including the environmental noise of the quantum computing device of Olivadese]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Olivadese and Hazaveh in order to handle the black swan event using SOMs to optimally reduce impulsive noise (Hazaveh, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese in view of Hazaveh for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese in view of Hazaveh for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese in view of Hazaveh for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese in view of Hazaveh for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivadese in view of Ruan et al. (VACSEN: A Visualization Approach for Noise Awareness in Quantum Computing, hereinafter referred to as “Ruan”).
Regarding claim 6, Olivadese teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Olivadese teaches
determining whether a quantum processor was being utilized at a same time as said black swan event (Olivadese, [0065]-[0069] - teaches comparing noise data to historic noise data to predict operation time in order to identify decoherence time caused by the noise; Olivadese, [0072]-[0078] – teaches pausing the quantum operations during a period of decoherence cause by the external noise [Pausing the operations during due to noise data demonstrates using the system during the black swan event]);
executing a machine learning model to identify said action to be performed to handle said black swan event in response to said quantum processor being utilized at said same time as said black swan event (Olivadese, [0079]-[0084] - teaches using machine learning to identify when to pause the quantum operation due to noise).
However, Olivadese does not explicitly teach receiving user feedback regarding said identified action to be performed to handle said black swan event; and updating said machine learning model based on said received user feedback.
Ruan teaches
receiving user feedback regarding said identified action to be performed to handle said black swan event (Ruan, section 7.2 – teaches users being able to update algorithms and quantum operations based on visualization of noise data); and
updating said machine learning model based on said received user feedback (Ruan, section 7.2 – teaches users being able to update algorithms and quantum operations based on visualization of noise data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olivadese with the teachings of Ruan in order to guarantee the high fidelity of the execution result of a quantum algorithm in the field of quantum computing noise monitoring (Ruan, Abstract – “Quantum computing has attracted considerable public attention due to its exponential speedup over classical computing. Despite its advantages, today’s quantum computers intrinsically suffer from noise and are error-prone. To guarantee the high fidelity of the execution result of a quantum algorithm, it is crucial to inform users of the noises of the used quantum computer and the compiled physical circuits. However, an intuitive and systematic way to make users aware of the quantum computing noise is still missing. In this paper, we fill the gap by proposing a novel visualization approach to achieve noise-aware quantum computing. It provides a holistic picture of the noise of quantum computing through multiple interactively coordinated views: a Computer Evolution View with a circuit-like design overviews the temporal evolution of the noises of different quantum computers, a Circuit Filtering View facilitates quick filtering of multiple compiled physical circuits for the same quantum algorithm, and a Circuit Comparison View with a coupled bar chart enables detailed comparison of the filtered compiled circuits. We extensively evaluate the performance of VACSEN through two case studies on quantum algorithms of different scales and in-depth interviews with 12 quantum computing users. The results demonstrate the effectiveness and usability of VACSEN in achieving noise-aware quantum computing.”).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese in view of Ruan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Olivadese in view of Ruan for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125