DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on January 30, 2024. Claims 2-15 are pending in the case, with claim 2 in independent form. Claim 1 is cancelled via preliminary amendment.
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 .
Summary of Detailed action
Claims 2 and 14 are objected to regarding informalities.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 7: change “where in” to “wherein”
Claim 14, line 1: change “determine” to “determines”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-15 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. Independent claim 2 recites wherein the quantum method publishes a first valid block and next consequent valid blocks in a quantum distributed ledger, where in the distributed ledger is
PNG
media_image1.png
74
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 does not define or specify any of the variables or terms used in the equation. Therefore, it is not clear what the variables or terms used in the equation represent or do not represent and the claim is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 2 or amend claim 2 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 3-15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Applicant may cancel dependent claims 3-15 or amend dependent claims 3-15 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 2-15 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. Independent claim 2 recites the limitation " the hash of a current block." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may cancel claim 2 or amend claim 2 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 3-15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Applicant may cancel dependent claims 3-15 or amend dependent claims 3-15 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 2-15 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. Independent claim 2 recites the limitation “the hash of the previous valid block." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may cancel claim 2 or amend claim 2 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 3-15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Applicant may cancel dependent claims 3-15 or amend dependent claims 3-15 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 2-15 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. Independent claim 2 recites the limitation for wherein the quantum method publishes a first valid block and next consequent valid blocks in a quantum distributed ledger, wherein “the distributed ledger” is … .” It is further unclear if “the distributed ledger” is supposed to be the same as the “quantum distributed ledger” or is supposed to be a conventional distributed ledger or blockchain. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may cancel claim 2 or amend claim 2 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 3-15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2. Applicant may cancel dependent claims 3-15 or amend dependent claims 3-15 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.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and recites wherein the hash of “the current” is stored by the quantum circuit or as part of a basis state. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this is a typographical error and that claim 4 was intended to recite “the current block” or if “the current” is supposed to refer to something else. Applicant may cancel claim 2 or amend claim 2 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.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 depends from claim 2 and recites wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
24
46
media_image2.png
Greyscale
stores a hash of a previous block in a blockchain. Claim 7 is not clear regarding whether ”a previous block” is a different previous block or the same “previous block” that is recited by parent claim 2. Claim 7 is further not clear regarding whether “a blockchain” is referencing a different conventional blockchain or is supposed to be the “quantum blockchain” that is recited by parent claim 2. Applicant may cancel claim 7 or amend claim 7 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 8-9 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. Claim 8 depends from claim 2 and recites wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
46
28
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a probability amplitude of each block in a blockchain, wherein H is a hash of a valid block. Claim 8 does not specify or define the variable M. Therefore, it is not clear what the variable M represents or does not represent, which renders the claim indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 8 or amend claim 8 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.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8. Applicant may cancel dependent claim 9 or amend dependent claim 9 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 8-9 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. Claim 8 depends from claim 2 and recites wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
46
28
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a probability amplitude of each block in a blockchain, wherein H is a hash of a valid block. Claim 8 is not clear regarding whether “a blockchain” is referencing a different conventional blockchain or is supposed to be the “quantum blockchain” that is recited by parent claim 2. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 8 or amend claim 8 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.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8. Applicant may cancel dependent claim 9 or amend dependent claim 9 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.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the memory space." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may cancel claim 10 or amend claim 10 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 12-13 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. Claim 12 depends from claim 2 and recites wherein the quantum circuit includes “the quantum gate
PNG
media_image4.png
22
46
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” that is used to create a weighted basis states in the quantum blockchain. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is further unclear in that claim 12 does not specify or define what the quantum gate
PNG
media_image4.png
22
46
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents. Therefore, it is not clear what quantum gate
PNG
media_image4.png
22
46
media_image4.png
Greyscale
represents or does not represent and the claim is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 12 or amend claim 12 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.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 12. Applicant may cancel dependent claim 13 or amend dependent claim 13 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.
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites “wherein S operators, that are from set of CNOT gates and quantum NOT gates, are used to search for basis states in a quantum distributed ledger or the quantum blockchain.” It is not clear how S operators from set of CNOT and quantum NOT gates are used or can be used to search for basis states in a quantum distributed ledger or the quantum blockchain. Claim 14 depends from claim 2 which already recites “a quantum distributed ledger” so it is not clear if “a quantum distributed ledger” recited by claim 14 is a completely different quantum distributed ledger or if it is supposed to be the same quantum distributed ledger recited by claim 2. Further, claim 14 recites “a quantum distributed ledger or a quantum blockchain. It is not clear if a quantum distributed ledger is the same as a quantum blockchain or if they are different things. Applicant may cancel claim 14 or amend claim 14 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter at a general, high-level of a quantum method, wherein the quantum method publishes a first valid block and next consequent valid blocks in a quantum distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger is
PNG
media_image1.png
74
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-15 recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter and belong to the statutory class(es) of a process (method claims 2-15), a machine (system/apparatus claims ), and an article of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media claims ).
Claim 2 recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 1 further recites a quantum method, wherein the quantum method publishes a first valid block and next consequent valid blocks in a quantum distributed ledger, wherein the distributed ledger is
PNG
media_image1.png
74
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
receiving, by a quantum circuit, information of valid blocks to be published via a quantum blockchain (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
storing, by the quantum circuit, the hash of a current block, within the valid blocks, and the hash of the previous valid block within the quantum blockchain (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the hash of the current block is stored by the quantum circuit as a probability amplitude of a basis state that implement the quantum blockchain (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the hash of the current is stored by the quantum circuit or as part of a basis state (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein
PNG
media_image5.png
20
26
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is a register of size n qubits that store data of the ith valid block (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6, dependent on claim 5, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the data includes at least one transaction, a time stamp, a blocks' header information, or a block creator (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 7, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
24
46
media_image2.png
Greyscale
stores a hash of a previous block in a blockchain (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8, dependent on claim 2, recites only additional abstract ideas for
wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
46
28
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a probability amplitude of each block in a blockchain, wherein H is a hash of a valid block, which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).
Claim 9, dependent on claim 8, recites only additional abstract ideas for
wherein M is a number of blocks stored in the distributed ledger, which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).
Claim 10, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein an algorithm of the quantum circuit exponentially reduces the memory space for the quantum blockchain when compared with a blockchain that does not use the quantum circuit (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather (store) data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31. Also an additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the quantum circuit includes a set of Toffoli gates, CNOT gates, quantum Not gates, and S operators (An additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the quantum circuit includes the quantum gate
PNG
media_image4.png
22
46
media_image4.png
Greyscale
that is used to create a weighted basis states in the quantum blockchain (An additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 13, dependent on claim 12, recites additional abstract ideas for each valid block as weighted basis state, which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the quantum circuit implements (An additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14, dependent on claim 2, recites additional abstract ideas for determine whether the current block is a genesis block, which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
a qubit
PNG
media_image6.png
20
34
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(An additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15, dependent on claim 2, recites additional abstract ideas for wherein S operators, that are from set of CNOT gates and quantum NOT gates, which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
are used to search for basis states in a quantum distributed ledger or the quantum blockchain (An additional element that amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
The closest prior arts of record are Smith et al. (US 11,477,015 B1) Davis et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0281427 A1), Cheung et al. (US 11,669,833), Yang, et al. ("Decentralization Using Quantum Blockchain: A Theoretical Analysis," in IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 1-16, 2022, Art no. 4100716, doi: 10.1109/TQE.2022.3207111), Li, Quin et al. (Efficient Quantum Blockchain With a Consensus Mechanism QDPoS, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, DOI 10/1109/TIFS.2022.3203316 August 31, 2022), Del Rajan et al. (Quantum Blockchain Using Entanglement in Time, arXiv: 1804.05979v2 April 18, 2019), E.O. Kiktenko et al.( E.O. Kiktenko, Quantum-secured blockchain, arXiv:1705.09258v3, June 3, 2018), Wen, Xiao-jun (CN 111970130 B), and Li, Chuntang; et al. (Journal of Quantum Computing; Henderson Vol. 1, Issue 2, (2019): 49-63. DOI:10.32604/jqc.2019.06715).
Smith et al. (US 11,477,015 B1) teaches that a computing system may comprise a memory for storing a ledger; a computer processor for verification of the ledger, wherein the computer processor comprises at least one of a classical computer processor configured to run a virtual quantum machine and a quantum computer comprising a plurality of qubits; wherein the ledger is configured to store arbitrary classical information and quantum information which is verifiable using the computer processor. Furthermore, in some embodiments the computing system is configured to perform operations comprising: adding to the ledger using the computer processor to solve a mathematically difficult problem which is Quantum-Merlin-Arthur-complete (QMA-complete). In embodiments, a blockchain includes a quantum state. In some aspects, a unitary operator corresponding to a quantum rotation is found when new transaction data are to be secured in the blockchain. Abstract.
Davis et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0281427 A1) teaches systems and methods for proof of assertion of a value using a hash-oriented transaction scheme. The use of hashing instead of a standard algorithm that relies on a mathematical problem provides for resistance against quantum computing, particularly when a sufficient complex hash is used with a resulting value that is of sufficient size to be resistant to collision, such as SHA-256. A blockchain is used to store declarations, where blockchain provides an immutable and time-stamped record of declaration messages. The declaration includes a value that a user may later want to prove, such as an identity document, contract, land deed, voting record, etc. The declaration also includes a hash value that is generated by hashing the value as well as one or more other items that are known only to the user. When the user wants to prove ownership of that value, or otherwise attest to its authenticity, the user can make a confirmation message on the blockchain. The confirmation message includes the one or more other items that were used to create the hash value stored in the declaration. By revealing those values being known to the user, any entity wishing to audit the user's assertion can compute the hash value using the value to be attested-to and the one or more other items in the confirmation message and check it against the hash value in the declaration. A match proves the user's assertion successful. The result is a system that is resistant to quantum computing, while still enabling a user to quickly, easily, and securely prove assertion of a value through use of hashing and blockchain. Abstract, para 4.
Cheung et al. (US 11,669,833) teaches that Quantum security may be enhanced through the use of quantum-safe validators for transactions whereby the quantum-safe validators process quantum-safe addresses and signatures of parties to the transactions. Quantum safety may be added to conventional blockchain transactions, for example, via smart contracts which are executed using cryptographic interlocks to between conventional smart contract execution engines and quantum-safe validators to ensure both quantum-safe processing of addresses and signatures and legitimacy of quantum-safe validators in presenting transactions for incorporation on the chain. Abstract.
Yang, et al. ( "Decentralization Using Quantum Blockchain: A Theoretical Analysis," in IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 1-16, 2022, Art no. 4100716, doi: 10.1109/TQE.2022.3207111.) teaches that, Blockchain technology has been prominent recently due to its applications in cryptocurrency. Numerous decentralized blockchain applications have been possible due to blockchains’ nature of distributed, secured, and peer-to-peer storage. One of its technical pillars is using public-key cryptography and hash functions, which promise a secure, pseudo anonymous, and distributed storage with nonrepudiation. This security is believed to be difficult to break with classical computational powers. However, recent advances in quantum computing have raised the possibility of breaking these algorithms with quantum computers, thus, threatening the blockchains’ security. Quantum-resistant blockchains are being proposed as alternatives to resolve this issue. Some propose to replace traditional cryptography with postquantum cryptography—others base their approaches on quantum computer networks or quantum internets. Nonetheless, a new security infrastructure (e.g., access control/authentication) must be established before any of these could happen. This article provides a theoretical analysis of the quantum blockchain technologies that could be used for decentralized identity authentication. We put together a conceptual design for a quantum blockchain identity framework and give a review of the technical evidence. We investigate its essential components and feasibility, effectiveness, and limitations. Even though it currently has various limitations and challenges, we believe a decentralized perspective of quantum applications is noteworthy and likely. Abstract.
Li, Quin et al. (Efficient Quantum Blockchain With a Consensus Mechanism QDPoS, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, DOI 10/1109/TIFS.2022.3203316 August 31, 2022) teaches that, Quantum blockchain is expected to offer an alternative to classical blockchain to resist malicious attacks laughed by future quantum computers. Although a few quantum blockchain schemes have been constructed, their efficiency is low and unable to meet application requirements due to the fact that they lack of a suitable consensus mechanism. To tackle this issue, a consensus mechanism called quantum delegated proof of stake (QPDoS) is constructed by using quantum voting to provide fast decentralization for the quantum blockchain scheme at first. Then an efficient scheme is proposed for quantum blockchain based on QPDoS, where the classical information is initialized as a part of each single quantum state and these quantum states are entangled to form the chain. Compared with previous methods, the designed quantum blockchain scheme is more complete and carried out with higher efficiency, which greatly contributes to better adapting to the challenges of the quantum era. Abstract.
Del Rajan et al. (Quantum Blockchain Using Entanglement in Time, arXiv: 1804.05979v2 April 18, 2019) teaches that, We propose a conceptual design for a quantum blockchain. Our method involves encoding the blockchain into a temporal GHZ (Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger) state of photons that do not simultaneously coexist. It is shown that the entanglement in time, as opposed to an entanglement in space, provides the crucial quantum advantage. All the subcomponents of this system have already been shown to be experimentally realized. Furthermore, our encoding procedure can be interpreted as nonclassically influencing the past. Abstract.
E.O. Kiktenko et al.( E.O. Kiktenko, Quantum-secured blockchain, arXiv:1705.09258v3, June 3, 2018) teaches that Blockchain is a distributed database which is cryptographically protected against malicious modifications. While promising for a wide range of applications, current blockchain platforms rely on digital signatures, which are vulnerable to attacks by means of quantum computers. The same, albeit to a lesser extent, applies to cryptographic hash functions that are used in preparing new blocks, so parties with access to quantum computation would have unfair advantage in procuring mining rewards. Here we propose a possible solution to the quantum-era blockchain challenge and report an experimental realization of a quantum-safe blockchain platform that utilizes quantum key distribution across an urban fiber network for information-theoretically secure authentication. These results address important questions about realizability and scalability of quantum-safe blockchains for commercial and governmental applications. Abstract.
Wen, Xiao-jun (CN 111970130 B) teaches a quantum blockchain establishing method and system, the method comprises: when the showing end successfully obtains the account authority of the current transaction record, receiving the condition quantum hash value sent by the accounting terminal corresponding to the current transaction record before recording the account authority of the transaction record; the condition quantum hash value is obtained corresponding to the current transaction record before a transaction record of the account authority of the account terminal according to the block in the block corresponding to the previous transaction record account authority; generating a qua positive transform process record corresponding to the conditional quantum hash value; generating the block head of the current block according to the n-n conversion process record; the current block is the block corresponding to the current transaction record accounting authority; updating the transaction record set according to the current transaction record, and generating the block of the current block according to the updated transaction record set; generating the current quantum hash value according to the block of the current block. saves the calculation resource; the throughput is high; the time delay is small. Abstract.
Li, Chuntang; et al. (Journal of Quantum Computing; Henderson Vol. 1, Issue 2, (2019): 49-63. DOI:10.32604/jqc.2019.06715) teaches that Quantum blockchain can be understood as a decentralized, encrypted and distributed database based on quantum computation and quantum information theory. Once the data is recorded in the quantum blockchain, it will not be maliciously tampered with. In recent years, the development of quantum computation and quantum information theory makes more and more researchers focus on the research of quantum blockchain. In this paper, we review the developments in the field of quantum blockchain, and briefly analyze its advantages compared with the classical blockchain. The construction and the framework of the quantum blockchain are introduced. Then we introduce the method of applying quantum technology to a certain part of the general blockchain. In addition, the advantages of quantum blockchain compared with classical blockchain and its development prospects are summarized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20230275759-A1, US-11637711-B2
KR 102311354 B1,Blockchain Transaction Method With Reduced Transaction Size Using Cryptographic Hash Algorithm, English Translation, Published October 13, 2021.
JP 2025510803 A, Quantum Timestamping, English Translation, Filed February 14, 2023,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA LEVEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BARBARA M LEVEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights