DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendments filed on 02/09/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended. Any examiner’s note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krneta et al. (US 20230153155 A1) hereafter Krneta in view of Stammers et al. (US 20200162870 A1) hereafter Stammers, further in view of Dou et al. (US 20250077922 A1) hereafter Dou, further in view of Chandroliya et al. (US 20230244663 A1) hereafter Chandroliya.
Regarding claim 1, Krneta teaches:
receiving a query that provides access to a plurality of resources (Paragraph 14; “In some embodiments, the algorithm execution management system may receive a request from a user for execution of an algorithm using different types of computing resources, including classical computing resources and quantum computing resources” corresponds to receiving a query providing access to a plurality of resources because the request coordinates use of multiple resources);
determining whether the query satisfies one or more query computation constraints (Paragraph 15; “In some embodiments, responsive to receiving the request from the user, the algorithm execution management system may determine whether the quantum computing resources are available to execute the algorithm” corresponds to determining whether the query satisfies computation constraints because the assessment of resource availability necessarily enforces limits on computation based on system capacity);
in response to the query satisfying the one or more query computation constraints: providing, to a quantum computing system comprising a plurality of qubits, a quantum instruction set that describes a mapping between the plurality of qubits and the plurality of resources (Paragraphs 15-16; “in some embodiments, based on the algorithm provided by the user, the algorithm execution management system may identify or select appropriate quantum computing resources (e.g., from a pool of quantum computing resources) for the user”, and “The algorithm execution management system may instruct at least one portion of the algorithm to be executed at the classical computing resources using the container provided in the request, and at least another portion of the algorithm to be executed at the quantum computing resources” corresponds to providing a quantum instruction set because transmittal of executable algorithm portions entails forming and sending a structured instruction set that defines how qubits are to be utilized. The selection of resources establishes the mapping between qubits and resources);
and returning, as a response to the query, a result from the plurality of resources (Paragraphs 23-24; “the container may include the customized algorithm code and one or more appropriate libraries for executing the customized code in the container” and “For example, user 116 may use environment variable to customize an input path or directory in the container for retrieving the algorithm code (e.g., the script files and/or graphic diagram files), an output path or directory for storing execution results” corresponds to the claimed limitation because it describes an execution management framework that coordinates hybrid quantum classic execution and returns results from the quantum system).
Krneta does not teach that the query is in an API language comprising a plurality of nested API operations; receiving, from the quantum computing system, an execution path that is responsive to the query and determined based on execution of the quantum instruction set; and returning, as a response to the query, a result from the plurality of resources based on the execution path received from the quantum computing system.
However, Stammers teaches:
the query is in an API language comprising a plurality of nested API operations (Paragraph 34; “The API may be defined at least in part by one or more API request types to perform one or more operations in relation to a plurality of resources of a data store” corresponds to nested API operations because it describes multiple request types and operations over a plurality of resources consistent with nested API operations given one or more operations).
Krneta and Stammers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query processing systems between resources and API data retrieval frameworks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krneta to incorporate the teachings of Stammers and have the request be in an API language and comprise nested API operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the predictable improvement of enabling a system to more efficiently represent and execute multi-resource queries thereby optimizing resource utilization.
Krneta in view of Stammers does not teach receiving, from the quantum computing system, an execution path that is responsive to the query and determined based on execution of the quantum instruction set; and returning, as a response to the query, a result from the plurality of resources based on the execution path received from the quantum computing system.
However, Dou teaches:
receiving, from the quantum computing system, an execution path that is responsive to the query and determined based on execution of the quantum instruction set (Paragraph 110; “obtains a directed acyclic graph of the to-be-executed quantum program and an initial mapping relationship between logic bits and physical bits, determines the execution timing of the to-be-executed logic gate set of the to-be-executed quantum program based on the directed acyclic graph of the to-be-executed quantum program” and “determine the optimal mapping circuit of the topological structure of the quantum chip such that the resource utilization of the whole quantum chip is maximized” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the quantum computing system executes the instruction set to compute an optimized mapping, corresponding to the execution path, through quantum resources);
based on the execution path received from the quantum computing system (Paragraph 110; “determine the optimal mapping circuit of the topological structure of the quantum chip such that the resource utilization of the whole quantum chip is maximized” corresponds to the claimed limitation because once the quantum system determines the optimal mapping, the algorithm executes according to the mapping and producing a result via the optimally allocated resources, thus the returned result is inherently based on the execution path generated by the quantum instruction set).
Krneta, Stammers, and Dou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query processing systems for resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krneta in view of Stammers to incorporate the teachings of Dou and incorporate the mapping optimization methods of Dou motivated by the predictable improvement to performance and reduction of resource contention during quantum execution, consistent with the design goals of Krneta’s algorithm execution management system. Further, it would have been obvious to incorporate the mapping optimization methods of Dou to predictably improve performance and reduce resource contention during quantum execution, consistent with the design goals of the algorithm execution management system taught by Krneta in view of Stammers.
Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou does not teach that retrieving one or more resources from the plurality of resources.
However, Chandroliya teaches:
retrieving one or more resources from the plurality of resources (Paragraph 24; “an engine may be configured to retrieve resources created in other applications, which may then be ported into the engine for use during specific operational aspects of the engine”. The disclosure of resources in plural form and “other applications” indicates that multiple resources exist, thereby forming a plurality of resources. The ability of the engine to retrieve resources involves selecting one or more resources from the available plurality.).
Krneta, Stammers, Dou, and Chandroliya are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query processing systems for resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou to incorporate the teachings of Chandroliya and have utilized the API call of Krneta in view of Stammers further in view of Dou to retrieve one or more resources from a plurality of resources as taught by Chandroliya. A person of ordinary skill ion the art would have been motivated to implement the resource retrieval of Chandroliya using the API mechanisms of Krneta in view of Stammers further in view of Dou in order to enable retrieval of resources from external sources. Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou already operate across system components. Retrieval of external resources is a natural extension of the system enabling accessibility to remote resources and improving interoperability across system boundaries, representing an application of the known technique of cross-system resource retrieval to yield the predictable result of remote resource accessibility.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, additionally reciting one or more processors. Krneta further teaches:
One or more processors (Paragraph 70; “computer system 900 may be a uniprocessor system including one processor 910, or a multiprocessor system including several processors”).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Krneta further teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph 71; “In various embodiments, system memory 920 may be implemented using any non-transitory storage media”).
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta further teaches:
wherein determining whether the query satisfies one or more query computation constraints comprises determining whether a nesting level associated with the query exceeds a predetermined nesting value (Paragraphs 26-28; “quantum computing resources 112 may receive multiple algorithms for execution, but the total number of concurrent executions may be restricted. Thus, in some embodiments, the algorithm may be queued, together with other algorithms, temporarily in a storage. In some embodiments, the algorithms in the queue may be executed in a sequential order” corresponds to the claimed limitation because it discloses checking whether the number of active or queued computations exceeds a resource threshold before allowing further execution. Based on Paragraph 28 of the instant specification, “nesting level” is interpreted to correspond to a maximum computational load. The disclosure of Krneta reflects determining whether a computational load exceeds a predetermined allowable value, corresponding to the predetermined nesting value, before processing continues).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as those of claim 3. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta further teaches:
wherein determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprises determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints prior to any processing of the query by a classical computing system to attempt to return the result (Paragraphs 27-29; “in some embodiments, algorithm execution management system 106 may first determine whether quantum computing resources 112 are available to execute the algorithm. When it is determined that quantum computing resources 112 are available, algorithm execution management system 106 may then cause classical computing resources 110 to be provisioned” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the system checks quantum resource availability, corresponding to the one or more query computation constraints, before provisioning or executing anything on the classical computing resources, thereby occurring prior to any classical processing intended to generate and return a result).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as those of claim 4. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta further teaches:
wherein determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprises determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints in parallel with and based upon processing of the query by a classical computing system to attempt to return the result (Paragraphs 28-30; “during execution of the algorithm, classical computing resources 110 and quantum computing resources 112 may iteratively exchange data. For example, in some embodiments, at one step, quantum computing resource 112 may receive data from classical computing resource 110. The data received from classical computing resource 110 may include calculation results at classical computing resource 110. Based on the data, quantum computing resource 112 may proceed to complete the step of the execution, and in return provide calculation results back to classical computing resource 110. Next, classical computing resource 110 may use the data from quantum computing resource 112 to finish a next step of execution” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the iterative data exchange indicates concurrent, corresponding to parallel, operation between the classical and quantum processing, where decisions bout continuation or completion of computation depend on results from the classical system processing).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations as those of claim 5. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta further teaches:
wherein the quantum instruction set comprises a QASM file (Paragraph 25; “the code of the algorithm in the container may be composed as script files using quantum computing languages, such as Quil, Open QASM, cQASM, etc”).
Regarding claim 11, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Dou further teaches:
executing, by the quantum computing system, the quantum instruction set to determine the execution path (Paragraph 110; “determines the execution timing of the to-be-executed logic gate set of the to-be-executed quantum program based on the directed acyclic graph of the to-be-executed quantum program; determines the respective cost of mapping each logic gate in the to-be-mapped logic gate set with the topological structure of the quantum chip based on the execution timing and the initial mapping relationship” and “determine the optimal mapping circuit of the topological structure of the quantum chip such that the resource utilization of the whole quantum chip is maximized” teaches that the quantum system executes instructions to determine an optimal mapping circuit, corresponding to determining an execution path through available resources. The mapping of logic gates to physical qubits based on cost minimization reflects the process of executing quantum instructions to derive an optimal execution sequence through system resources.).
Regarding claim 12, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Dou further teaches:
wherein relationships between the plurality of resources are structured according to a graph; and the execution path traverses the graph (Paragraph 110; “obtains a directed acyclic graph of the to-be-executed quantum program and an initial mapping relationship between logic bits and physical bits, determines the execution timing of the to-be-executed logic gate set of the to-be-executed quantum program based on the directed acyclic graph of the to-be-executed quantum program” and “determine the optimal mapping circuit of the topological structure of the quantum chip such that the resource utilization of the whole quantum chip is maximized” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the DAG represents the graph structure of the resources and the steps of mapping and adjusting the execution timing reflect traversal of that graph to determine an optimal execution path. That execution path is therefore defined as the determined mapping based on a traversal through the nodes, corresponding to the resources, of the graph).
Regarding claim 13, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta further teaches:
wherein the plurality of resources comprise a plurality of data objects in a database (Paragraph 45; “data storage service 530 may also include various kinds of object or file data stores for putting, updating, and getting data objects or files, which may include data files of unknown file type” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the data objects stored and managed by the service represent the plurality of resources, and the storage service functions as a database that handles the data objects).
Claims 2, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya, further in view of Malfait et al. (US 20240047080 A1) hereafter Malfait.
Regarding claim 2, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya does not teach wherein the API query language is GraphQL. However, Malfait teaches:
wherein the API query language comprises GraphQL (Paragraph 31; “System 100 may represent an API-first platform that employs a combination of GraphQL based APIs”).
Krneta, Stammers, Dou, Chandroliya, and Malfait are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query processing systems for resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya with the teachings of Malfait to have the API query language be GraphQL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the predictable improvement of improving query flexibility and resource access efficiency, thus allowing the system of Krneta to handle more complex queries.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as those of claim 2. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Stammers further teaches:
API operations (Paragraph 34; “The API may be defined at least in part by one or more API request types to perform one or more operations in relation to a plurality of resources of a data store”).
Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya does not teach wherein determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprises determining when one of the requested operations comprises traversing a one-to-many relationship between the plurality of resources.
However, Malfait teaches:
wherein determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprises determining when one of the requested API operations comprises traversing a one-to-many relationship between the plurality of resources (Paragraphs 46-47; “The JSON object is traversed based on the service configuration and is defined in terms of data views, each of which consists of data selectors and (further recursive) data views” corresponds to the claimed limitation because the recursive traversal of data views and selectors inherently processes hierarchical and one-to-many relationships between resources. The traversal step identifies and handles these relationships as part of query execution).
Krneta, Stammers, Dou, Chandroliya, and Malfait are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query processing systems for resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya with the teachings of Malfait to have determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprise determining when one of the requested API operations comprises traversing a one-to-many relationship between the plurality of resources. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the predictable improvement of improving constraint evaluation accuracy and resource allocation efficiency during hybrid classical-quantum query execution. The algorithm execution management system of Krneta determines computational constraints before coordinating tasks between hybrid resources. The incorporation of Malfait’s teaching of traversal recognition would have predictably allowed the system to assess computational complexity based on structural relationships.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya, further in view of Rahman et al. (US 11762860 B1) hereafter Rahman.
Regarding claim 6, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teaches the method of claim 5. Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya does not teach wherein determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprises determining when a memory usage associated with processing of the query by the classical computing system exceeds a predetermined usage value.
However, Rahman teaches:
wherein determining whether the query satisfies the one or more query computation constraints comprises determining when a memory usage associated with processing of the query by the classical computing system exceeds a predetermined usage value (Col. 15, lines 21-26; “As indicated by the loop back from 830 to 820, an emergency phase scheduling policy may continue to be applied as long as liveness criteria are not satisfied (e.g. enough available memory to execute a query according to the query's predicted memory usage and a number of queries in the queue exceeds a threshold number)”, where the predicted memory usage is the predetermined usage value which is used to determine whether a memory usage associated with processing a query exceeds this value).
Krneta, Stammers, Dou, Chandroliya, and Rahman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query-based resource allocation and performance consideration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Krneta in view of Stammers further in view of Dou further in view of Chandroliya with the teachings of Rahman to have determined when a memory usage associated with processing of the query by the classical computing system exceeds a predetermined usage value. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that doing so would have yielded a predictable improvement in system efficiency and stability. By proactively monitoring and constraining memory use, the system may prevent overloads and reduce latency.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya, further in view of Gutierrez et al. (US 20230102347 A1) hereafter Gutierrez.
Regarding claim 9, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya does not teach wherein the quantum instruction set describes a one-to-one mapping between the plurality of qubits of the quantum computing system and the plurality of resources.
However, Gutierrez teaches:
wherein the quantum instruction set describes a one-to-one mapping between the plurality of qubits of the quantum computing system and the plurality of resources (Paragraphs 40-41; “consider a case in which a first program with a resource requirement of 2 qubits and a second program with a resource requirement of 3 qubits are to be mapped to a 6-qubit quantum computer”, where “In the first mapping 710, the first program is mapped to qubits 0 and 1 and the second program is mapped to qubits 2, 3, and 4. In the second mapping 750, the first program is mapped to nodes 0 and 1 and the second program is mapped to nodes 3, 4, and 5” corresponds to the claimed limitation because it describes program resources being explicitly mapped to particular qubits which defines how each logical resource is represented by a unique qubit within the execution set, equivalent to an instruction set specifying a one-to-one correspondence between qubits and resources).
Krneta, Stammers, Dou, Chandroliya, and Gutierrez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query-based resource allocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Krneta in view of Stammers further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya with the teachings of Gutierrez to have the quantum instruction set describe a one-to-one mapping between the plurality of qubits of the quantum computing system and the plurality of resources. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement a one-to-one mapping between qubits and resources by the predictable improvement of ensuring reliable and interference-free execution of quantum operations. Isolated mapping facilitates efficient scheduling and control thereby improving stability of quantum computing systems.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, , further in view of Chandroliya further in view of Smith (US 20210132969 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou , further in view of Chandroliya teach the method of claim 1. Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya does not teach automatically generating the quantum instruction set by encoding the plurality of requested API operations of the API query language into the quantum instruction set.
However, Smith teaches:
automatically generating the quantum instruction set by encoding the plurality of requested API operations of the API query language into the quantum instruction set (Paragraph 49; “The API can expose the application to a quantum machine instruction library”, where “the API 214 is configured to allow the application 212 to generate quantum algorithms 222 that control both the classical processing system and quantum processing system using the quantum machine instruction library” corresponds to the claimed limitation because it automatically invokes corresponding resources and routines within the quantum machine instruction library to generate the executable quantum algorithm).
Krneta, Stammers, Dou, Chandroliya, and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of query-based resource allocation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Krneta in view of Stammers, further in view of Dou, further in view of Chandroliya with the teachings of Smith to have automatically generated the quantum instruction set by encoding the plurality of requested API operations of the API query language into the quantum instruction set. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to automatically generate the quantum instruction set by encoding API operations into the quantum instruction set to streamline development and execution of quantum programs, motivated by the need for scalability and interoperability between classical and quantum systems.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as those of claim 10. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are summarized below:
Krneta and Stammers do not teach the amended portion of claim 1, 14, and 20.
Krneta does not disclose a mapping between a plurality of qubits and the plurality of resources, or a quantum instruction set describing the mapping.
A user customizing an input path and output path for a container via environment variables fails to teach or suggest returning one or more resources as a response to a query based on an execution path determined by a quantum computing system.
Dependent claims are submitted as allowable for at least the above reasons.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Examiner agrees that Krneta and Stammers do not teach or suggest the amended portion of claims 1, 14, and 20. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Krneta, Stammers, Dou, and Chandroliya, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Krneta [0015-0016] discloses the selection of quantum computing resources for execution of an algorithm. The system instructs one portion of the algorithm to be executed on classical computing resources and at least another portion to be executed on quantum computing resources [0016]. This establishes a correspondence between algorithm components and respective computing resources used for execution. [0020] confirms that quantum resources are composed of qubits. Therefore, Krneta [0015-0016] teaches a functional mapping between resources on qubit-based hardware systems where quantum tasks operate on qubits and execution on qubit-based resources which shows that qubits are mapped to the resources for execution. Execution of quantum tasks involves underlying quantum operations at the qubit level which is implemented via a quantum instruction set in the underlying stack. Dou is also mapped to the quantum instruction set and discloses a quantum program execution model including a directed acyclic graph of quantum operations, logic bits corresponding to qubits, and an explicit mapping between logic bits and physical computing resources [0110]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper and maintained.
Krneta discloses receiving a user request, identifying a container resource based on a path associated with the request, executing an algorithm with the identified resource, and returning results to the user [0023-0024], which therefore teaches responding to a query by retrieving and executing resources associated with the request. Dou discloses determining an optimal execution mapping of a quantum program based on a directed acyclic graph and cost-based optimization of mapping logical qubits to physical qubits, thereby determining an execution path on a quantum computing system. Krneta provides the request, resource identification, runtime processing, and result return mechanism, whereas Dou provides how the execution path is determined by a quantum computing system, in combination thereby teaching or suggesting returning a result as a response to a query being based on an execution path determined by a quantum computing system. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper and maintained.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 remain rejected for the reasons stated above. Therefore, contrary to Applicant's arguments, because the dependent claims depend from an unpatentable claim and does not add limitations that overcome the rejection, it likewise remains rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bucchi et al. (US 20190196890 A1) discusses mapping objects as resources to GraphQL IDs upon receiving an API request containing a nested query.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 4:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. PT, F 4:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/KENNETH P TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights