CTNF 18/178,240 CTNF 94377 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 3, 2023; December 1, 2023 (x2); and May 9, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The use of the term BLUETOOTH (paragraph 161), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “learning component” in claims 1 and 5-6 and “mitigation component” in claim 7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitations “learning component” and “mitigation component” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, it is unclear whether Applicant had possession of the claimed invention before the effective filing date. See rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) infra for further analysis. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-7 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 limitations “learning component” and “mitigation component” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Regarding the “learning component,” several paragraphs, including, but not limited to, paragraphs 63, 88, 91, 104, 114-16, and 124-25, discuss the functions of the learning component. Those paragraphs, however, are largely only slightly more detailed discussions of the functions of claims 1 and 5-6, and none of these further details can be characterized as an algorithm for performing the entire claimed functions. 07-34-23 Regarding the “mitigation component,” paragraph 64 effectively repeats the claimed function of inserting an inverse of the noise into the circuit without providing an algorithm for how the function is performed. Paragraph 133 clarifies that the inversion is performed “via any suitable matrix inversion techniques”, but the specification does not indicate what technique is used or how. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonough et al., “Automated Quantum Error Mitigation based on Probabilistic Error Reduction,” in IEEE/ACM Third Int’l Workshop on Quantum Computing Software 83-93 (2022) (“McDonough”) in view of Oliver et al. (US 20210406749) (“Oliver”) and further in view of Burgholzer et al., “Handling Non-Unitaries in Quantum Circuit Equivalence Checking,” in Proc. 59 th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conf. 529-34 (2022) (“Burgholzer”) . Regarding claim 1, McDonough discloses “[a] system, comprising: … a learning component that learns noise associated with a[n] … operation of a … quantum circuit ( McDonough Fig. 1 and accompanying text disclose an automated error mitigation protocol starting from user-defined quantum circuits and returning noise-mitigated expectation values by, inter alia, performing noise tomography involving Pauli noise tomography or gate set tomography to characterize [learn] the noise ), by modifying the … operation with … twirled Pauli operators ( McDonough Fig. 6 discloses a probabilistic error reduction circuit containing a twirl operator and its conjugation by a Clifford layer C ).” McDonough appears not to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Oliver discloses “a processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory ( Oliver Fig. 12, computing device 1200 containing processors 1202 and computer-readable storage media 1206 storing error mitigation facility 1208 ), wherein the computer-executable components comprise: … a component that … modif[ies] the … operation with a probabilistic Pauli-Z gate ( states of a first qubit are measured after performance of a stochastic [probabilistic] Z gate operation – Oliver, paragraph 72 ) ….” Oliver and the instant application both relate to quantum computing and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonough with to apply a probabilistic Z gate, as disclosed by Oliver, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would allow the system to mitigate errors. See Oliver, paragraph 40. Neither McDonough nor Oliver appears to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Burgholzer discloses a “mid-circuit non-unitary operation of a dynamic quantum circuit ( quantum circuit model is extended by non-unitary primitives such as mid-circuit measurements and resets as well as classically-controlled quantum operations; as a consequence, circuits are no longer static, but dynamic – Burgholzer, sec. 3.1, first paragraph ) ….” Burgholzer and the instant application both relate to quantum computing and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDonough and Oliver to perform mid-circuit non-unitary operations of dynamic quantum circuits, as disclosed by Burgholzer, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would offer a broader range of available computing primitives than static quantum circuits. See Burgholzer, abstract. Claim 8 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Similarly, claim 15 is a computer program product claim corresponding to system claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Regarding claim 2, McDonough, as modified by Oliver and Burgholzer, discloses that “the mid-circuit non-unitary operation comprises a mid-circuit qubit measurement that feeds forward to at least one classically-controlled quantum gate ( once qubit re-use is eliminated from a dynamic circuit, the only potentially non-unitary primitives remaining are mid-circuit measurements and classically-controlled operations [gates] conditioned on their result [i.e., the measurement results are fed forward to the classically-controlled gates] – Burgholzer, p. 532, first full paragraph ).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDonough and Oliver to perform non-unitary operations comprising mid-circuit qubit measurements feeding forward to classically-controlled quantum gates, as disclosed by Burgholzer, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would offer a broader range of available computing primitives than static quantum circuits. See Burgholzer, abstract. Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Similarly, claim 16 is a computer program product claim corresponding to system claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. McDonough further discloses that “the at least one … quantum gate is between the twirled Pauli operators ( McDonough Fig. 6 shows a Clifford gate C i that is between the twirled operators ).” Burgholzer discloses a “classically-controlled quantum gate”, as shown in the rejection of claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDonough and Oliver to use a classically-controlled quantum gate, as disclosed by Burgholzer, for substantially the same reason as given in the rejection of claim 2. Claim 10 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Similarly, claim 17 is a computer program product claim corresponding to system claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. McDonough further discloses that “the at least one … quantum gate is not between the twirled Pauli operators ( McDonough Fig. 6 shows a single-qubit gate G i that is not between the twirled operators ).” Burgholzer discloses a “classically-controlled quantum gate”, as shown in the rejection of claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDonough and Oliver to use a classically-controlled quantum gate, as disclosed by Burgholzer, for substantially the same reason as given in the rejection of claim 2. Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Similarly, claim 18 is a computer program product claim corresponding to system claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. McDonough further discloses that “the learning component learns the noise by repeatedly executing, across a set of Pauli bases and across a set of repetition depths, the … operation as modified with … the twirled Pauli operators and extracting, based on such repeated executions, a set of basis fidelities respectively corresponding to the set of Pauli bases ( McDonough Fig. 5 discloses a benchmark circuit that changes from the computational basis to a Pauli basis being benchmarked, applies a noisy layer with a Pauli twirl operator P that is repeated an even number 2d of times [where d can vary to create multiple repetition depths], and uses the results to benchmark fidelity pairs [i.e., extract basis fidelities corresponding to the Pauli basis]; first full paragraph on p. 89 shows that there are nine Pauli bases tested [i.e., there is a set of Pauli bases] ).” Oliver discloses a “probabilistic Pauli-Z gate”, as shown in the rejection of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonough to use a probabilistic Z gate, as disclosed by Oliver, for substantially the same reason as given in the rejection of claim 1. Burgholzer discloses a “mid-circuit non-unitary operation”, as shown in the rejection of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDonough and Oliver to perform a mid-circuit non-unitary operation, as disclosed by Burgholzer, for substantially the same reason as given in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Similarly, claim 19 is a computer program product claim corresponding to system claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Regarding claim 7, McDonough, as modified by Oliver and Burgholzer, discloses that “the computer-executable components further comprise: a mitigation component that mitigates the noise by inserting an inverse of the noise into the dynamic quantum circuit ( McDonough Fig. 6 discloses a probabilistic error reduction circuit that contains, inter alia, a noise inverse component [mitigation component] ).” Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 1st and 2nd paragraphs, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET. 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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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. /RYAN C VAUGHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 2 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 3 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 4 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 5 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 6 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 7 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 8 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 9 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 10 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 11 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 12 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/178,240 Page 13 Art Unit: 2125
Prosecution Insights