DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 01/08/2026.
Claims 1-9 have been amended.
Claims 10-20 have been added.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 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 1, line 14, “GHZ” is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 9, line 16, “GHZ” is unclear and indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-8 and 19-20 are directed to a method performing a Bell State measurement and performing a Bell Inequality test, claims 9-17 is directed to using a Bell State measurement apparatus to perform a Bell State measurement and using a Bell Inequality test apparatus to perform a Bell Inequality test. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method of determining whether one or more pairs of qubits are quantum- entangled, the method comprising:
performing a Bell State measurement on
(i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and
(ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state,
performing a Bell Inequality test on
(iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and
(iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state,
wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” is directed to mathematics because performing a Bell state measurement, especially when the qubits come from different multi-partite quantum-entangled states, is fundamentally rooted in mathematics and quantum mechanics. While entanglement is a quantum phenomenon, its description and the manipulation involved in Bell state measurements are expressed and understood through mathematical frameworks, including linear algebra and probability theory. Qubits exist in superpositions of states (0 and 1), described mathematically by vectors in a complex vector space. Entangled states are specifically described as non-separable linear combinations of these basis vectors. Bell states are a specific class of maximally entangled two-qubit states. There are four such states, and their mathematical forms are defined as specific combinations of basis states.
“performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” is directed to mathematics because Bell Inequalities are a cornerstone of quantum mechanics that use mathematical principles to test and quantify entanglement and non-classical correlations. Bell's theorem and the inequalities derived from it are purely mathematical constructs. They are inequalities that put limits on the correlations between measurement outcomes if certain assumptions (like local realism) hold true. These inequalities are expressed mathematically. The core purpose of a Bell Inequality test is to determine if a quantum system exhibits entanglement, a phenomenon that cannot be explained by classical physics and requires quantum mechanics. The violation of a Bell Inequality, based on statistical analysis of experimental outcomes, indicates the presence of entanglement, which is a precisely defined mathematical concept in quantum information theory.
“wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states” is directed to math because an-qubit GHZ state is defined as the superpositions in a 2n – dimensional Hilbert space. GHZ states are foundational for defining entanglement measures, such as the three tangle, and are represented within the geometry of Bloch spheres for multi-qubit systems. The GHZ is structured around non-commuting observables and their eigenvalues, providing a mathematical contradiction to local hidden variable theories.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state.” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because qubits (quantum bits) are directly related to quantum computers, serving as the fundamental unit of information in these machines, analogous to the bits in classical computers. While classical bits can only represent a 0 or a 1, qubits leverage quantum mechanics principles like superposition and entanglement to exist in multiple states simultaneously, allowing quantum computers to process information in a fundamentally different way than traditional computers. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because qubits (quantum bits) are directly related to quantum computers, serving as the fundamental unit of information in these machines, analogous to the bits in classical computers. While classical bits can only represent a 0 or a 1, qubits leverage quantum mechanics principles like superposition and entanglement to exist in multiple states simultaneously, allowing quantum computers to process information in a fundamentally different way than traditional computers. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely measuring data, collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 but recites a Bell State measurement apparatus for performing a Bell State measurement and a Bell Inequality test apparatus for performing a Bell Inequality test. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 9 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 9.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, “wherein the first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state each contain three quantum-entangled qubits” is directed to math because the first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and the second multi-partite quantum-entangled stat, each multi-partite quantum-entangled state is a three-qubit GHZ state, which is a fundamental mathematical construct used to demonstrate that quantum entanglement is not merely a statistical anomaly, but a direct contradiction to classical local realism.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, “wherein the first multi-partite quantum-entangled state is located in a first node and the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state is located in a second node” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, “wherein the Bell State measurement is performed at a third node, separate to the first and second nodes” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, wherein the third node is on board a satellite” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein more than 1000 iterations of the method are performed”. The claims do not recite any details regarding how more than 1000 iterations of the method are performed. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the more than 1000 iterations of the method as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the use of the more than 1000 iterations of the method merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of more than 1000 iterations of the method to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding claim 7, “determining if the Bell Inequality is violated for more than a threshold proportion the iterations performed” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 8, “transmitting the fifth qubit to a first external entity and transmitting the sixth qubit to a second external entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 14, “the arrangement is configured to transmit the fifth qubit to a first external entity and transmit the sixth qubit to a second external entity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 15, “wherein the Bell State measurement apparatus for performing the Bell State measurement includes at least one of a mixing beam splitter, a single photon detector, or a polarising beam splitter” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 16, “wherein: the Bell State measurement apparatus for performing the Bell State measurement includes a mixing beam splitter configured so that the first and second qubits are passed through the mixing beam splitter, and the mixing beam splitter is configured to provide outputs” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 17, “wherein the Bell State measurement apparatus for performing the Bell State measurement further includes a polarising beam splitter configured to split one or more of the outputs from the mixing beam splitter” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 18, “wherein the Bell State measurement apparatus for performing the Bell State measurement further includes at least one single photon detector configured to detect one or more outputs from the polarising beam splitter” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 19, “wherein the Bell State measurement is performed using at least one of a mixing beam splitter, a single photon detector, or a polarising beam splitter” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 20, “wherein: passing the first and second qubits through a mixing beam splitter to provide outputs; splitting one or more of the outputs from the mixing beam splitter using a polarising beam splitter; and detecting one or more outputs from the polarising beam splitter using at least one single photon detector” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that claim 1, including steps (i)-(iv), clearly define "performing a Bell State measurement", which by definition requires an interaction with photons (which is a non-mathematical interaction). More specifically, a Bell measurement is a measurement of tangible quantities, not simply a mathematical operation. While mathematics is used to describe what the measurement does and represents the effect, the measurement is not a mathematical process.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees
Step 2A Prong 1:
“performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” is directed to mathematics because performing a Bell state measurement, especially when the qubits come from different multi-partite quantum-entangled states, is fundamentally rooted in mathematics and quantum mechanics. While entanglement is a quantum phenomenon, its description and the manipulation involved in Bell state measurements are expressed and understood through mathematical frameworks, including linear algebra and probability theory. Qubits exist in superpositions of states (0 and 1), described mathematically by vectors in a complex vector space. Entangled states are specifically described as non-separable linear combinations of these basis vectors. Bell states are a specific class of maximally entangled two-qubit states. There are four such states, and their mathematical forms are defined as specific combinations of basis states.
“performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” is directed to mathematics because Bell Inequalities are a cornerstone of quantum mechanics that use mathematical principles to test and quantify entanglement and non-classical correlations. Bell's theorem and the inequalities derived from it are purely mathematical constructs. They are inequalities that put limits on the correlations between measurement outcomes if certain assumptions (like local realism) hold true. These inequalities are expressed mathematically. The core purpose of a Bell Inequality test is to determine if a quantum system exhibits entanglement, a phenomenon that cannot be explained by classical physics and requires quantum mechanics. The violation of a Bell Inequality, based on statistical analysis of experimental outcomes, indicates the presence of entanglement, which is a precisely defined mathematical concept in quantum information theory.
“wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states” is directed to math because an-qubit GHZ state is defined as the superpositions in a 2n – dimensional Hilbert space. GHZ states are foundational for defining entanglement measures, such as the three tangle, and are represented within the geometry of Bloch spheres for multi-qubit systems. The GHZ is structured around non-commuting observables and their eigenvalues, providing a mathematical contradiction to local hidden variable theories.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state.” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because qubits (quantum bits) are directly related to quantum computers, serving as the fundamental unit of information in these machines, analogous to the bits in classical computers. While classical bits can only represent a 0 or a 1, qubits leverage quantum mechanics principles like superposition and entanglement to exist in multiple states simultaneously, allowing quantum computers to process information in a fundamentally different way than traditional computers. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because qubits (quantum bits) are directly related to quantum computers, serving as the fundamental unit of information in these machines, analogous to the bits in classical computers. While classical bits can only represent a 0 or a 1, qubits leverage quantum mechanics principles like superposition and entanglement to exist in multiple states simultaneously, allowing quantum computers to process information in a fundamentally different way than traditional computers. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely measuring data, collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“performing a Bell State measurement on (i) a first qubit, the first qubit being from a first multi-partite quantum-entangled state and (ii) a second qubit, the second qubit being from a second multi-partite quantum-entangled state” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“performing a Bell Inequality test on (iii) a third qubit, the third qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state and (iv) a fourth qubit, the fourth qubit being from the second quantum-entangled state, determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum states are GHZ states” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, “determining, using an outcome of the Bell Inequality test, whether a fifth qubit, the fifth qubit being from the first multipartite quantum-entangled state is quantum-entangled with a sixth qubit, the sixth qubit being from the second multi-partite quantum-entangled state, wherein the first and second multi-partite quantum-entangled states are GHZ states” as cited in claims 1 and 9.
Examiner agrees, therefore the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857