DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in reply to application no. 18/218,211, filed 5 July 2023. Claims 1-12 are pending and are considered below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 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. Each claim requires determining a quantum bit in “a position that is not located between a second plurality of [quantum] bits”. The concept of “between” is a linear, i.e. one-dimensional concept, and the applicant makes no attempt to redefine it, and now cannot. In a linear set such as the real numbers, it is possible to determine between-ness: 4 is between 3 and 10 while 15 is not. In a one-dimensional object such as a line, it is possible to determine whether any point is between two other points. But unlike standard, classical-computer bit representations, in which the bits can be considered to be in a line (even though, really, they are not), there is no such possible representation of qubits. Qubits exist in multiple dimensions and, by their nature, do not have fixed positions; even if they did, the concept of “between” in any multidimensional space is indefinite. A simple example will serve: an analog clock. At six o’clock, it is clear that the center of the clock is between the tip of the minute hand and the tip of the hour hand. At nearly any other time of day, there is uncertainty; reasonable people might disagree, and that is because the very idea of “between” makes no sense in a multidimensional space. Qubits exist in a space of at least three dimensions, so there is no reasonable way to define a relation such as “between” in any way that would make sense. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is going to mentally redefine “between” as follows, which is a stretch, because the originally filed application in no way supports this, but it at least allows for an art search: the Examiner will define qubit A as being between qubits B and C if the smallest possible sphere or hypersphere that completely encloses B and C also completely encloses A; otherwise A is not between B and C. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture), method (process) or apparatus (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) determining a position in no particular manner, determining an order in no particular manner but simply based upon certain data, and providing output . These are all steps of a mental process; in the absence of computers, they can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Given a drawing of some quantum bits and gates, a person could look at it and determine, or at least estimate based on the Examiner’s interpretation, the claimed betweenness, could determine an ordering in any manner at all, and could display the bits by a pictorial representation e.g. with a pen or pencil. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea . See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As the claims only nondescriptly manipulate data regarding images relating to quantum bits and gates, and share data with users, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05 (a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05 (b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned. They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05 (c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim. Claim 9, which has the most, includes a processor and memory; claim 1 includes instructions for the processor to execute. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with users. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually. The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated; claims 4, 8 and 12 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)). Conclusion As no rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, a brief review of the state of the art at the relevant date (August 2022) is in order. Griffin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0387821) disclose a system for authentication based on a change in state of a qubit. [title] The “state of a qubit” may be “represented by a Bloch sphere”, and a qubit can be rotated about an axis via a programming instruction such as in “quantum assembly language”. [0019] But Griffin does not make determinations similar to those of the present claims. Hisamoto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0271213, filed 2 February 2022) disclose a semiconductor device [title] that manages information about “qubits” which are provided in a drawing and shown as “parallel to [] gate lines” which are used for a “signal amplifying element”. [0110] Gidney (“Unknowable, but Equal”, Algorithmic Assertions blog, 19 January 2016, retrieved 9 March 2026 from algassert.com/quantum/2016/01/09/unknown-but-equal.html) explains a problem in measurement of quantum system that describes a “mathematically elegant way to tell if two quantum values” are incompatible in a certain way, and gives visual depictions of how quantum bits may be displayed using mathematical symbols. [pg. 1, as printed] But none of these, alone or combined, teach or suggest every limitation of the claims of the present invention, in particular the condition under which it is determined to make a parallel display of quantum bit representations, combined with the other presently claimed limitations. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7442 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 to 5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bennett Sigmond can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (303) 297-4411 . 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. /SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694