DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s correspondence filed on 1/20/25.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 are currently pending.
Claims 1 are rejected as set forth 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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title “ANONEMIS RESEARCH SOFTWARE HARD DRIVE PROTOCOL POLICY PROCESSES 2305” does not clearly describe the claimed invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in Figure 1 is not legible and is difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are multiple Specifications filed on 1/20/25 that conflict with each other, i.e. have overlapping paragraphs. Applicant is suggested to provide a substitute Specification that serves as the most recent Specification version.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The paragraph following “The invention claimed is:” and preceding claim 1 is not a valid claim. See examples of proper claim formatting in the cited art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, the limitation “monitor micropatterns of subject content to identify and correct miscalculations in media content, processes, sequences, and operations using quantum parallel data algorithm structure" fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of performing the monitoring step using a quantum parallel data algorithm structure. The Specification merely repeats the claimed limitation in verbatim and fails to provide specific details that are necessary to perform the quantum parallel data algorithm structure. See [0014]. See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”).
As per claim 1, the limitation “identify and correct miscalculations in media content, processes, sequences, and operations” is a claimed genus that fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not disclose a sufficient description of a representative number of species for the genus of media content, processes, sequences, and operations. The Specification is silent on species pertinent to the aforementioned genera. See MPEP 2163 (II)(A)(3)(a)(ii).
As per claim 1, the limitation “implement encryption that operates simultaneously and perpendicularly for each transaction in connection with quantum sequence triplication and quantum operation supremacy testing for accuracy verification" fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of encryption that operates simultaneously and perpendicularly along with quantum sequence triplication and quantum operation supremacy testing. The Specification merely repeats the claimed limitation in verbatim and fails to provide specific details that are necessary to perform the quantum sequence triplication and the quantum operation supremacy testing. See [0014]. See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”).
As per claim 1, the limitation “manage solar satellite telecommunications networks and solar transportation networks through live digital mapping systems that display electrical, satellite, and solar power source locations" fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of managing solar networks through live digital mapping systems. The Specification lacks any mention of managing solar networks, let alone managing solar networks through live digital mapping systems. See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”).
As per claim 1, the limitation “detect power outages in real-time and implement power source redirection through: (i) monitoring network connectivity and transportation system status, (ii) detecting network anomalies and implementing automated correction protocols, (iii) maintaining redundant communication pathways and backup power systems, (iv) coordinating multi-system operations for continuous network operation, (v) tracking power source locations and distribution networks in real-time, and (vi) providing real-time updates of system modifications and status information" fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of detecting power outages. The Specification lacks any mention of detecting power outages, let alone detecting power outages via steps i-vi. See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”).
As per claim 1, the limitation “wherein said processor utilizes quantum processing units configured to execute quantum parallel algorithms, pattern recognition modules for continuous monitoring, quantum sequence triplication verification systems, and quantum operation supremacy testing modules to maintain system integrity through automated protocols” fails to comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Specification does not sufficiently disclose the computer/algorithm required to perform the claimed function of quantum parallel algorithms, pattern recognition modules for continuous monitoring, quantum sequence triplication verification systems, and quantum operation supremacy testing modules. See MPEP 2161.01(I): (“When examining computer implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, the limitation “implement encryption that operates simultaneously and perpendicularly for each transaction” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because the underlined phrase lacks antecedent basis. There is no prior mention of a plurality of transactions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. 20240169242 to Gorman.
As per claim 1, Gorman teaches:
A quantum parallel data algorithm processing system comprising: a processor configured to execute an algorithmic software process implementing pattern recognition for isolated observation, wherein said processor is configured to: monitor micropatterns of subject content to identify and correct miscalculations in media content, processes, sequences, and operations using quantum parallel data algorithm structure, wherein said processor utilizes quantum processing units configured to execute quantum parallel algorithms, pattern recognition modules for continuous monitoring and encryption modules for secure data transmission. ([0155], “The methods and the quantum processor architectures described herein uses quantum mechanics to perform computation. The processors, for example, may be used for a range of applications and provide enhanced computation performance, these applications include: encryption and decryption of information, advanced chemistry simulation, optimization, machine learning, pattern recognition, anomaly detection, financial analysis and validation amongst others.”; [0070]-[0071], “The qubit 201 can be incorporated in various implementations of a universal quantum computer, provided it can be initialized, measured and fully controlled, and an entangling gate between two such qubits is possible. The unavoidable errors in those operations however need to be lower than the error threshold of the error correction algorithm running on the quantum computer for the latter to work. Disclosed herein is an implementation of a universal quantum computer using a specific error detection and correction code called “surface code”. The surface code has an error threshold of about 1%. All operations proposed herein can be implemented below that threshold.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 20240086756 to Fujisaki discloses an information processing apparatus that determines a combination of a first data qubit and a second data qubit that further reduces the energy represented by an energy equation. The energy equation includes first to third energy terms. The first energy term is used to identify the first data qubit on which a Z error has occurred. The second energy term is used to identify the second data qubit on which an X error has occurred. The third energy term reduces the energy as the number of data qubits each being a third data qubit on which both a Z error and an X error have simultaneously occurred increases. The information processing apparatus determines that a Y error has occurred on the third data qubit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY HUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-9799. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00a - 5:30p PT.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/JAY HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619