DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 5/16/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
One reference is struck from the 5/16/2023 IDS because a copy was not included on that date. However, the same reference was included on and with the 5/17/2023 IDS.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “executing” where “executed” was apparently intended.
Claim 5 recites “into analog digital data” where “into analog transformation data” was apparently intended.
Claim 5 recites “according to analog” where “according to the analog” was apparently intended.
Claim 6 recites “been” where “being” was apparently intended.
Claim 8 recites “successfully runs” where “successfully runs [said] application code inside of” was apparently intended.
Claim 9 recites “verification” where “verifications” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “enclave comprising means for: receiving information from a remote client through a secured communication channel,” “enclave comprising means for: … determining transformation data from said information,” “enclave comprising means for: … transforming at least one qubit received from said qubit source, according to transformation data,” “enclave comprising means for: … providing the at least one transformed qubits to said quantum-computing means,” “enclave comprises means for modulating at least one qubit received from said qubit source, according to modulation data,” “transforming means (SMod) for transforming a degree of freedom of said at least one qubit according to analog transformation data,” “enclave is configured to: determine test qubits among said at least one qubit,” “enclave is configured to: … transform said test qubits according to an unknown transformation,” “enclave is configured to: … instruct said quantum-computing means to measure the transformed test qubits according to a given base,” “enclave is configured to: … verify if the result of the measurements is compatible with said unknown transformation,” “enclave is configured to: … trigger an error if a number of failed verification is above a given threshold” in claims 1, 4-5, and 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “said Trusted Execution Environment.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claims 1 and 4. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes “a trusted execution environment” similar to claim 5.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “said classical enclave.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claims 1 and 4. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes “a classical secured enclave (SSE)” similar to claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites “said qubit source.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purposes of prior art and subject matter eligibility analyses Examiner assumes “a qubit source (SS)” similar to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunjko et al. (“Blind quantum computing with two almost identical states,” 6 April 2016, https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.01586, hereinafter Dunjko).
As to independent claim 1, Dunjko discloses a quantum-enabled server (S) (“Bob (server),” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” line 2) comprising an enclave (SE) (“the server learns nothing about the computation Alice evaluated,” page 4 line 2), a qubit source (SS) (“a third party - Charlie the state preparator,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” line 7), and quantum-computing means (SM) (“delegated quantum computing pertains to any two party protocol between Alice (client) and Bob (server), where Alice evaluates some (quantum) computation using the help of Bob,” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” lines 1-3), said enclave comprising means for:
receiving information from a remote client (“Alice (client),” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” lines 1-2) through a secured communication channel (“Alice has to prepare and send … the phase angle θ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” lines 2-3);
determining transformation data from said information (phases “θi ∈ ϴ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11));
transforming at least one qubit received from said qubit source, according to transformation data (“σAB,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11)); and
providing the at least one transformed qubits to said quantum-computing means (“Alice and Bob apply sequentially to their respective systems and the communication channel C,” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” Definition 1 lines 3-4).
As to dependent claim 2, Dunjko further discloses a server wherein said transformation data are contained in said information and adapted to transform said at least one qubit (“Alice has to prepare and send … the phase angle θ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” lines 2-3).
As to dependent claim 4, Dunjko further discloses a server wherein said transformation data are modulation data (phases “θi ∈ ϴ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11)), and said enclave comprises means for modulating at least one qubit received from said qubit source, according to modulation data (“σAB,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11)).
As to independent claim 11, Dunjko discloses a method for delegating quantum computing to a quantum-enabled server (“delegated quantum computing pertains to any two party protocol between Alice (client) and Bob (server), where Alice evaluates some (quantum) computation using the help of Bob,” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” lines 1-3), comprising:
sending information from a remote client (“Alice (client),” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” lines 1-2) to an enclave (“the server learns nothing about the computation Alice evaluated,” page 4 line 2) inside said quantum-enabled server through a secured communication channel (“Alice has to prepare and send … the phase angle θ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” lines 2-3);
determining, at said enclave, transformation data from said information (phases “θi ∈ ϴ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11));
transforming, at said enclave, at least one qubit received from said qubit source (“a third party - Charlie the state preparator,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” line 7), according to said transformation data (“σAB,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11)); and
providing the at least one transformed qubits to said quantum-computing means (“Alice and Bob apply sequentially to their respective systems and the communication channel C,” page 3 section “2.2.1 Delegated quantum computing” Definition 1 lines 3-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunjko in view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0365585 A1, hereinafter Smith).
As to dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Dunjko does not appear to expressly teach a server wherein said information represents application code configured for being executing within said enclave and for generating said transformation data.
Smith teaches a server wherein said information represents application code configured for being executing within said [server] (“FIGS. 3A-3B are a flow diagrams showing example processes 300A, 300B of operating a computer system. The example processes 300A, 300B can be performed, for example, by a computer system that receives and handles job requests from users that do not have access to quantum computing resources,” paragraph 0054 lines 1-6) and for generating said transformation data (“compiler module 230 compiles the uncompiled program into a schedule of instructions,” paragraph 0046 lines 11-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Dunjko to comprise the transformation of Smith. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely transforming via application code (“compiler module 230 compiles the uncompiled program into a schedule of instructions,” Smith paragraph 0046 lines 11-13). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dunjko further teaches a server wherein said enclave comprises:
a classical secured enclave (SSE) comprising a trusted execution environment (“(classical input - classical output) UBQC constructs S from classical channels,” page 18 paragraph 5 lines 3-4), [] and configured to generate said transformation data [] (phases “θi ∈ ϴ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11));
a digital-to-analog converter (SDAC) for converting said digital transformation data into analog digital data (
θ
-
); and
transforming means (SMod) for transforming a degree of freedom of said at least one qubit (“σAB,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11)) according to [] transformation data (phases “θi ∈ ϴ,” page 4 section “4 The CQ correlations in UBQC” Equation (11)).
Dunjko does not appear to expressly teach a server comprising:
a memory comprising an operating system and adapted to host an application code, and [configured to generate said transformation data] as digital transformation data (θ);
a digital-to-analog converter (SDAC) for converting said digital transformation data into analog digital data (
θ
-
); and
[transforming … according to] analog [transformation data].
Smith teaches a server comprising:
a memory (“a user database memory module 215,” paragraph 0040 line 9) comprising an operating system and adapted to host an application code (“FIGS. 3A-3B are a flow diagrams showing example processes 300A, 300B of operating a computer system. The example processes 300A, 300B can be performed, for example, by a computer system that receives and handles job requests from users that do not have access to quantum computing resources,” paragraph 0054 lines 1-6), and [configured to generate said transformation data] as digital transformation data (θ) (“the controllers 106A generate control information (e.g., a digital waveform) that is delivered to the signal hardware 104A and converted to control signals (e.g., analog waveforms) for delivery to the quantum processor cell 102A,” paragraph 0037 lines 1-5);
a digital-to-analog converter (SDAC) for converting said digital transformation data into analog digital data (
θ
-
) (“the controllers 106A generate control information (e.g., a digital waveform) that is delivered to the signal hardware 104A and converted to control signals (e.g., analog waveforms) for delivery to the quantum processor cell 102A,” paragraph 0037 lines 1-5); and
[transforming … according to] analog [transformation data] (“the controllers 106A generate control information (e.g., a digital waveform) that is delivered to the signal hardware 104A and converted to control signals (e.g., analog waveforms) for delivery to the quantum processor cell 102A,” paragraph 0037 lines 1-5; “the controllers may receive the qubit readout signals (e.g., in the form of analog waveforms) from the signal hardware 104A,” paragraph 0038 lines 5-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Dunjko to comprise the digital/analog converter of Smith. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely providing digital control of analog units (“the controllers 106A generate control information (e.g., a digital waveform) that is delivered to the signal hardware 104A and converted to control signals (e.g., analog waveforms) for delivery to the quantum processor cell 102A,” Smith paragraph 0037 lines 1-5). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunjko in view of Smith and Reinhold (US 2018/0367309 A1).
As to dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Dunjko/Smith does not appear to expressly teach a server wherein the digital-to-analog convertor is encapsulated into a cage preventing any electromagnetic signals been read from outside of said enclave.
Reinhold teaches a server wherein the [component] is encapsulated into a cage preventing any electromagnetic signals been read from outside of said enclave (“The secret VLK data, considered red data, is enclosed in an electromagnetically shielded physical container such as a metal safe or a shielded compartment within a safe, or enclosed in some other Faraday cage shield,” paragraph 0073 lines 3-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclave of Dunjko/Smith to comprise the cage of Reinhold. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely blocking electromagnetic signals from leaking (“The secret VLK data, considered red data, is enclosed in an electromagnetically shielded physical container such as a metal safe or a shielded compartment within a safe, or enclosed in some other Faraday cage shield,” Reinhold paragraph 0073 lines 3-7). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunjko in view of Mulligan et al. (US 2021/0081545 A1, hereinafter Mulligan).
As to dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Dunjko does not appear to expressly teach a server wherein said information is ciphered and deciphered at said enclave at receipt.
Mulligan teaches a server wherein said information is ciphered and deciphered at said enclave at receipt (“a memory that is inaccessible by an operating system of the larger computing system (e.g., physically separate memory and/or controlling encryption of signals and/or states stored in a shared memory),” paragraph 0026 lines 15-18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Dunjko to comprise the encrypting of Mulligan. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely encrypting information as necessary (“a memory that is inaccessible by an operating system of the larger computing system (e.g., physically separate memory and/or controlling encryption of signals and/or states stored in a shared memory),” paragraph 0026 lines 15-18). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Dunjko does not appear to expressly teach a server wherein said enclave sends an attestation back to said client to if said Trusted Execution Environment successfully runs said classical enclave.
Mulligan teaches a server wherein said enclave sends an attestation back to said client to if said Trusted Execution Environment successfully runs said classical enclave (“receiving on or more messages transmitted from the at least one computing device comprising an attestation report,” paragraph 0098 lines 37-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Dunjko to comprise the attestation of Mulligan. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely sending an attestation (“receiving on or more messages transmitted from the at least one computing device comprising an attestation report,” Mulligan paragraph 0098 lines 37-38). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
As to dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Dunjko does not appear to expressly teach a server configured to retrieve a public key from said information, encrypt said transformation data with said public key, and transmit the encrypted transformation data to said client.
Mulligan teaches a server configured to retrieve a public key from said information (“Certa and Certb may comprise electronic documents that may be used to verify and/or authenticate ownership of public key Ka by input provider entity 210 and ownership of public key Kb by program provider entity 220, respectively,” paragraph 0033 lines 27-30), encrypt said transformation data with said public key, and transmit the encrypted transformation data to said client (“a memory that is inaccessible by an operating system of the larger computing system (e.g., physically separate memory and/or controlling encryption of signals and/or states stored in a shared memory),” paragraph 0026 lines 15-18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Dunjko to comprise the encrypting of Mulligan. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely encrypting information as necessary (“a memory that is inaccessible by an operating system of the larger computing system (e.g., physically separate memory and/or controlling encryption of signals and/or states stored in a shared memory),” paragraph 0026 lines 15-18). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dunjko in view of Fitzsimons et al. (“Unconditionally verifiable blind computation,” 28 September 2015, https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5217).
As to dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Dunjko does not appear to expressly teach a server wherein said enclave is configured to:
determine test qubits among said at least one qubit;
transform said test qubits according to an unknown transformation;
instruct said quantum-computing means to measure the transformed test qubits according to a given base;
verify if the result of the measurements is compatible with said unknown transformation; and
trigger an error if a number of failed verification is above a given threshold.
Fitzsimons teaches a server wherein said enclave is configured to:
determine test qubits among said at least one qubit (“include trap qubits,” page 20 section “6 Verification” line 5);
transform said test qubits according to an unknown transformation (“Follow the steps of Protocol 3,” page 20 section “Protocol 5” step “Follow the steps of Protocol 3”);
instruct said quantum-computing means to measure the transformed test qubits according to a given base (“if the trap qubit, t, is an output qubit, Alice measures it with angle δt = θt + rt𝜋 to obtain bt,” page 20 section “Protocol 5” step “Accept/Reject” lines 1-2);
verify if the result of the measurements is compatible with said unknown transformation (“Alice accepts if bt = rt,” page 20 section “Protocol 5” step “Accept/Reject” line 3); and
trigger an error if a number of failed verification is above a given threshold (“Alice accepts if bt = rt,” page 20 section “Protocol 5” step “Accept/Reject” line 3 – the threshold being 0).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Dunjko to comprise the verification of Fitzsimons. (1) The Examiner finds that the prior art included each claim element listed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. (2) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known development methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. (3) The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely verifying the transformation (Fitzsimons page 20 section “6 Verification”). Therefore, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 2019/0179730 A1 disclosing digital-analog qubit conversions and running application code
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Barrett whose telephone number is 571 270 3311. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am to 5:30pm.
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 Michelle Bechtold can be reached at 571 431 0762. 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.
/Ryan Barrett/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148