DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-7 are presented for examination. This office action is in response to submission of application 14-MARCH-2023 . 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14-MARCH-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 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoennenbeck et al. (Pub. No. US 20180107939 A1 , filed June 15 th 2017, hereinafter Schoennenbeck ) in view of McKiernan et al. ( WO 2020168158 A1 , filed February 14 th 2020, hereinafter McKiernan). Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites: A quantum circuit for solving a problem in a partially observable Markov decision process, comprising: a plurality of first unitary gates U(0), U(1), …, U(q) applied to an initially state including n qubits in order, and a plurality of second unitary gates a(0), a(1), …, a(q+1) applied to one qubit in a |0> state in order, wherein U(q) is controlled by a qubit output from a(q) and after computation by the first unitary gates and the second unitary gates is performed, states of the n qubits are observed to confirm a state of each qubit in order to set a final state. Schoennenbeck discloses a quantum circuit for solving a problem in a [ partially observable Markov decision process ] , comprising: a plurality of first unitary gates U(0), U(1), …, U(q) applied to an initial state including n qubits in order: Schoennenbeck teaches a series of quantum gates representing a unitary U, forming a plurality of first unitary gates wherein the operations of the unitary are applied to multiple qubits which would form an initial state (Paragraph 11). Schoennenbeck does not disclose a partially observable Markov decision process. This is taught further below by McKiernan. Schoennenbeck discloses a plurality of second unitary gates a(0), a(1), …, a(q+1) applied to one qubit in a |0> state in order, wherein U(q) is controlled by a qubit output from a(q): Schoennenbeck teaches that the unitaries themselves are made upon of multiple gates, which would be the second plurality of gates (Paragraph 11). Furthermore, for a particular qubit in |0> state (Paragraph 22), the second plurality of gates may be synthesized from a(0) to a(q) to form the given U (Paragraph 18), which would be U(q) controlled by a qubit output from a(q) as a(q) is the end of the synthesis. Schoennenbeck discloses after computation by the first unitary gates and the second unitary gates is performed, states of the n qubits are observed to confirm a state of each qubit in order to set a final state Schoennenbeck teaches that after the series of gates has been applied to the multiple qubits an output state is determined, which would be states of the n qubits are observed to confirm a state of each qubit in order to set a final state (Paragraph 132). McKiernan in the same field of endeavor of quantum computing discloses a partially observable Markov decision process: McKiernan teaches a quantum process directed t owards a partially observable Markov decision process (Paragraph 62). McKiernan and the present application are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of quantum computing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a quantum circuit that utilized the teachings of Schoennenbeck and the teachings of McKiernan. This would have provided the advantage of improving decision making with unobservable quantum states (McKiernan, Paragraph 62). Claim 6 recites a method that parallels the circuit of claim 1. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 1 also applies to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan further in view of Oxford et al. (Pub. No. US 20180157986 A1 , filed December 5 th 2017, hereinafter Oxford). Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 recites: A quantum circuit for solving a problem in a partially observable Markov decision process, comprising: a plurality of first unitary gates U(0), U(1), …, U(q) applied to an initially state including n qubits in order, and a plurality of second unitary gates a(0), a(1), …, a( 2 q+1) applied to q+1 qubit s in a |0> state in order, wherein a(q-1) and a(2q) are applied to the q- th qubit in the |0> state in order, U(q) is controlled by a qubit output from a(q) and after computation by the first unitary gates and the second unitary gates is performed, states of the n qubits are observed to confirm a state of each qubit in order to set a final state. Schoennenbeck discloses a quantum circuit for solving a problem in a [ partially observable Markov decision process ] , comprising: a plurality of first unitary gates U(0), U(1), …, U(q) applied to an initially state including n qubits in order : Schoennenbeck teaches a series of quantum gates representing a unitary U, forming a plurality of first unitary gates wherein the operations of the unitary are applied to multiple qubits which would form an initial state (Paragraph 11). Schoennenbeck does not disclose a partially observable Markov decision process. This is taught further below by McKiernan. Schoennenbeck discloses U(q) is controlled by a qubit output from a(q) and after computation by the first unitary gates and the second unitary gates is performed, states of the n qubits are observed to confirm a state of each qubit in order to set a final state : Schoennenbeck teaches that the second plurality of gates may be synthesized from a(0) to a(q) to form the given U (Paragraph 18), which would be U(q) controlled by a qubit output from a(q) as a(q) is the end of the synthesis Furthermore, Schoennenbeck teaches that after the series of gates has been applied to the multiple qubits an output state is determined, which would be states of the n qubits are observed to confirm a state of each qubit in order to set a final state (Paragraph 132). McKiernan discloses a partially observable Markov decision process: McKiernan teaches a quantum process directed towards a partially observable Markov decision process (Paragraph 62). Oxford in the same field of endeavor of quantum computing discloses a plurality of second unitary gates a(0), a(1), …, a(2q+1) applied to q+1 qubits in a |0> state in order, wherein a(q-1) and a(2q) are applied to the q- th qubit in the |0> state in order Oxford teaches at least two Bell state generators which each comprise two paired gates, wherein the two Bell state generators may therefore contain a(0), a(1), a(2), a(3) (Paragraph 22) applied to a pair of qubits (Paragraph 18) i.e. 2 qubits, q+1 qubits where q=1. During the processing of the two Bell state generators, the qubits are processed by at least two of the gates contained within the generators, e.g. a(q-1) = a(0) and a(2q)=a(2) where q=1. As Oxford teaches a particular instance of the above limitation, it therefore discloses it as a whole. Schoennenbeck has previous taught qubits in a |0> state. Oxford and the present application are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of quantum computing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a quantum circuit that utilized the teachings of Schoennenbeck , the teachings of McKiernan, and the teachings of Oxford. This would have provided the advantage of improving decision making with unobservable quantum states (McKiernan, Paragraph 62) as well as improving the coherence of a qubit (Oxford, Paragraph 9). Regarding claim 3, which depends upon claim 1 or 2: Claim 3 recites: The quantum circuit according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the first unitary gates are CNOT gates. Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan discloses the circuit of claim 1 upon which claim 3 may depend. Furthermore, Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan, further in view of Oxford discloses the circuit of claim 2 upon which claim 3 may depend. Oxford discloses the limitations of claim 3: Oxford teaches the use of CNOT gates (Paragraph 23), which may be used as the first unitary gates of Schoennenbeck for reasons of the advantage presented below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a quantum circuit that utilized the teachings of Schoennenbeck , the teachings of McKiernan and the teachings of Oxford. This would have provided the advantage of improving the coherence of a qubit (Oxford, Paragraph 9). Regarding claim 4, which depends upon claim 1 or 2: Claim 4 recites: The quantum circuit according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the second unitary gates are rotation gates. Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan discloses the circuit of claim 1 upon which claim 4 may depend. Furthermore, Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan, further in view of Oxford discloses the circuit of claim 2 upon which claim 4 may depend. Oxford discloses the limitations of claim 4: Oxford teaches the use of rotation gates (Paragraph 25), which may be used as the second unitary gates of Schoennenbeck for reasons of the advantage presented below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a quantum circuit that utilized the teachings of Schoennenbeck , the teachings of McKiernan, and the teachings of Oxford. This would have provided the advantage of improving the coherence of a qubit (Oxford, Paragraph 9). Regarding claim 5, which depends upon claim 1 or 2: Claim 5 recites: The quantum circuit according to claim 1 or 2,, wherein the plurality of first unitary gates correspond to permutation matrices, and a sample of a doubly stochastic matrix is obtain as the final state. Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan discloses the circuit of claim 1 upon which claim 5 may depend. Furthermore, Schoennenbeck in view of McKiernan, further in view of Oxford discloses the circuit of claim 2 upon which claim 5 may depend. Oxford discloses the limitations of claim 5: Oxford teaches that the final state of its Bell state generator chain (Paragraph 67) is a permutation matrix (Paragraph 70) , wherein a permutation matrix is itself a sample of a doubly stochastic matrix as permutation matrices are a subset of doubly stochastic matrices. Furthermore, Schoennenbeck teaches that the unitary gates may be represented as matrices ( Paragraph 6). Therefore, the permutation matrices of Oxford may be substituted for the generic matrices of Schoennenbeck for reasons of the advantage presented below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement a quantum circuit that utilized the teachings of Schoennenbeck , the teachings of McKiernan, and the teachings of Oxford. This would have provided the advantage of improving the coherence of a qubit (Oxford, Paragraph 9). Claim 7 recites a method that parallels the circuit of claim 2. Therefore, the analysis discussed above with respect to claim 2 also applies to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected based on substantially the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDRIA JOSEPHINE MILLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5684 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday: 7:30 - 5:00 pm, every other Friday 7:30 - 4:00 . 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 Mariela Reyes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1006 . 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. /A.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2142 /HAIMEI JIANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142