DETAILED ACTION
This action is written in response to the remarks and amendments dated 2/20/26. This action is made final. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner provides updated prior art rejections below necessitated by the current amendments. Additional arguments are also addressed below.
§101 – The Applicant argues “The claimed invention explicitly involves "a plurality of quantum calculators" and "a quantum calculation control program that causes at least one computer to execute a process." These elements clearly indicate that the claimed steps are not meant to be performed by a human mind, even with pen and paper, but require specialized computational devices operating in a complex, parallelized manner. A human mind cannot practically manage and execute quantum state calculations on multiple quantum calculators simultaneously, nor can it determine optimal calculation conditions under real-time constraints with the speed and precision required.” (Remarks, p. 7.)
The Examiner is not persuaded. The functionality of claim 1 does not include performing any quantum calculations. Rather, the claims recites ”causing a first calculator… to repeat calculation of the quantum state”. In other words, the recited functionality merely controls the iteration of a quantum calculator. The criteria for controlling this iteration can be performed as a mental process, eg by subtraction.
§101 – The Applicant argues “Similarly, the claimed invention, represents a clear improvement in the field of quantum computation. The core problem addressed by the claimed invention is the excessive computation time required for achieving demanded accuracy in quantum chemical calculations and other quantum computations”. (Remarks, p. 8.)
The Examiner is not persuaded. Representative independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium. Any “quantum calculators” seem to be distinct from and external to the claimed computer-readable storage medium, eg as suggested by fig. 2. Thus, the technology being improved by the Applicant’s invention (ie a system comprising a plurality of quantum calculators) is not claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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.
In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines, as well as guidance from MPEP § 2106.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture.
Step 2A, prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the claim recites one or more limitations which—under their broadest reasonable interpretation—covers performance of the limitation in the mind (see table below).
Claim limitation
Examiner analysis
Claims 1, 5 and 9: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a quantum calculation control program that causes at least one computer to execute a process, the process comprising:
causing a first quantum calculator among a plurality of quantum calculators that calculate a quantum state of a system to repeat calculation of the quantum state under a first calculation condition a first number of times; …
This is a mental process akin to a human evaluation/judgment. The Examiner notes that a quantum computer is not part of the recited storage medium. Instead, the recited storage medium merely controls the execution of processing by an external quantum processor. Determining how many times to repeat a particular calculation is a mental process.
causing a second quantum calculator among the plurality of quantum calculators to start calculation of the quantum state under a second calculation condition determined based on the first energy, during the calculation under the first calculation condition;
when a difference between the first energy and the second energy is equal to or less than a value, causing the second quantum calculator to continue the calculation under the second calculation condition until a number of calculations reaches the first number of times.
This is a mental process akin to a human evaluation/judgment. Determining how many times to repeat a particular calculation is a mental process.
Determining a difference (eg via subtraction) is a mental process akin to a human evaluation/judgment. Likewise, determining whether or not to continue iterating a particular calculation is a mental process.
Because the claim recites limitations which can practically be implemented as mental processes, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the claim recites only generic classical computing hardware: a computer-readable storage medium. The “quantum calculators” referred to in the claim seem to be distinct from and external to the claimed computer-readable storage medium, eg as suggested by fig. 2. Thus, the technology being improved by the Applicant’s invention (ie a system comprising a plurality of quantum calculators) is not claimed.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No—the additional limitations are addressed below:
acquiring first energy of the system, based on the information and a result of the calculation of the first quantum calculator for a second number of times less than the first number of times; and…
acquiring second energy of the system, based on the information and a result of the calculation of the first quantum calculator for the second number of times;
This is insignificant pre-solution activity: gathering data to be processed in subsequent steps.
This is insignificant pre-solution activity: gathering data to be processed in subsequent steps.
The only limitation on the performance of the described method is that it must be performed using a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The statement that the method is performed by computer does not satisfy the test of “inventive concept.” See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014).
For the reasons above, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to independent claims 5 and 9, which recite a method and device, respectively, as well as to dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-12. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below. Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims above do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim limitation
Examiner analysis
Claims 3, 7 and 11. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 2,
wherein the process further comprising when the difference is greater than the value, causing the second quantum calculator to suspend the calculation under the second calculation condition and to start calculation under a third calculation condition determined based on the second energy.
This is a mental process akin to a human evaluation/judgment.
Claims 4, 8 and 12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 2, wherein the value is calculation accuracy.
This is merely additional information about one or more previously identified mental processes.
Additional Relevant Prior Art and Allowable Subject Matter
All pending claims are allowable over the prior art. The following references were identified by the Examiner as being relevant to the disclosed invention, but are not relied upon in any particular prior art rejection:
Bharti discloses a survey of several noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms including eg quantum annealing (see p. 16 et seq.). (Bharti K, Cervera-Lierta A, Kyaw TH, Haug T, Alperin-Lea S, Anand A, Degroote M, Heimonen H, Kottmann JS, Menke T, Mok WK. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics. 2022 Jan 1; 94(1):015004.)
Cerezo discloses a VQE system, and discusses a technique for optimizing the relative and absolute error versus the number of iterations. (See eg fig. 4 and fig. 6.) (Cerezo M, Sharma K, Arrasmith A, Coles PJ. Variational quantum state eigensolver. npj Quantum Information. 2022 Sep 21; 8(1):113.)
Mitarai discloses a VQE system which features computing energy metrics as a control for iteration. See eg [0032]-[0033] and [0052]. (CA 3,137,475 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 12/19/23.)
None of the prior art reference identified by the examiner suggest or disclose the combination of limitations recited in each of independent claims 1/5/9, including specifically the following limitation:
when a difference between the first energy and the second energy is equal to or less than a value, causing the second quantum calculator to continue the calculation under the second calculation condition until a number of calculations reaches the first number of times.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Vincent Gonzales whose telephone number is (571) 270-3837. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. MT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miranda Huang, can be reached at (571) 270-7092.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center.
/Vincent Gonzales/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights