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
Acknowledgment is made of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 01/26/2024, 01/08/2025, 02/03/2025, 10/02/2025 and 02/26/2026. All of the cited references have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings have been received on 05/22/2023. These drawings are accepted.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“orchestration engine” in claims 1, 9, 11 and 19.
“prediction engine” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 and 6 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 5 recites the limitation "wherein the classification machine learning model is trained" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " wherein the prediction engine comprises a classification machine learning model." in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“identifying a minor embedding job that is part of executing the quantum job;”
“identifying, by a prediction engine, quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job;”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., identifying). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, identifying a minor embedding job and identifying quantum computing systems that are compatible (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“[identifying,] by a prediction engine, [quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job;]”
“executing the minor embedding job in a classical computing system; and”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a prediction engine and a classical computing system (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The limitations:
“receiving a quantum job at an orchestration engine;”
“placing the quantum job at a particular quantum computing system selected from the identified quantum computing systems.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "receiving a quantum job" and “placing the quantum” amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“[identifying,] by a prediction engine, [quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job;]”
“executing the minor embedding job in a classical computing system; and”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a prediction engine and a classical computing system (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating an inference [by inputting the minor embedding job to the prediction engine for each of a plurality of quantum computing systems,] wherein the inference indicates which of the plurality of quantum computing system are compatible with the minor embedding job and included in the identified quantum computing systems.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., generating). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, generating an inference (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
“[generating an inference] by inputting the minor embedding job to the prediction engine for each of a plurality of quantum computing systems, [wherein the inference indicates which of the plurality of quantum computing system are compatible with the minor embedding job and included in the identified quantum computing systems.]”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "inputting the minor embedding job" amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the minor embedding job comprises a matrix and [wherein the quantum computing systems comprise quantum annealers,] further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems based on a learned relationship between a matrix density of the matrix and hardware configurations of the quantum computing systems.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., identifying). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, identifying the minor embedding job and identifying compatible quantum computing systems (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“[wherein the minor embedding job comprises a matrix and] wherein the quantum computing systems comprise quantum annealers, [further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems based on a learned relationship between a matrix density of the matrix and hardware configurations of the quantum computing systems.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a quantum annealer (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“[wherein the minor embedding job comprises a matrix and] wherein the quantum computing systems comprise quantum annealers, [further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems based on a learned relationship between a matrix density of the matrix and hardware configurations of the quantum computing systems.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a quantum annealer (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“[wherein the prediction engine is trained to] classify the quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., classifying). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, classifying the quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the prediction engine is trained to [classify the quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a prediction engine (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“wherein the prediction engine is trained to [classify the quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job.]”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a prediction engine (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“wherein the classification machine learning model is trained by executing multiple minor embedding jobs on each of multiple quantum computing systems.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a [machine-learning based model] (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations:
“wherein the classification machine learning model is trained by executing multiple minor embedding jobs on each of multiple quantum computing systems.”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a [machine-learning based model] (e.g., by using these elements as tools).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The limitations:
“further comprising placing the embedding job at a node selected from a plurality of classical computing systems based on resource availability at the classical computing systems.”
As drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the additional elements of "placing the embedding job" amount to mere data gathering and data storage, respectively, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. (i.e., the additional element describes a unit for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) ("The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions ... i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network ... iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory") (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“further comprising selecting the particular quantum computing system based on inferences of the prediction engine.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., selecting). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, selecting the particular quantum computing system (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9,
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“further comprising excluding quantum computing systems that are not compatible with the minor embedding job from consideration by the orchestration engine for the quantum job.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., excluding). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, excluding quantum computing systems that are not compatible (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 10,
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems without performing a minor embedding operation at each of the quantum computing systems.”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, e.g., identifying). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, identifying the compatible quantum computing systems (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Please see the corresponding analysis of Claim 1.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 11,
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps similar of claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, in view of the following additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements identified above, failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
“A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising:”
This is a recitation of generic computing components to be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 8 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 9 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory storage medium for performing steps substantially similar to those of claim 10 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
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, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20240330738 A1); hereinafter Shi in view of Dudash (US 20230325461 A1); hereinafter Dudash and in further view of Vollath et al. (US 20240160687 A1); hereinafter Vollath
Claim 1 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath.
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches a method comprising: receiving a quantum job at an orchestration engine; (Shi [0035]: “the quantum circuit compilation service may both determine the compilation job plan and orchestrate execution of the compilation job plan using computing resources of a service provider network.”)
placing the quantum job at a particular quantum computing system selected from the identified quantum computing systems. (Shi [0030]: “quantum circuit compilation involves generating a hardware specific executable (e.g., a compiled artifact, such as a compiled binary for generating pulse sequences used to implement a quantum circuit on a quantum hardware device) based on a provided abstract quantum algorithm or logical quantum circuit”; and [0032]: “compilation may include two high-level phases, a first compilation phase that generates an optimized qubit allocation and mapping that is specific to a particular quantum processing unit that is to execute a quantum circuit, and a second compilation phase that generates pulse sequences to be used to implement the logical qubits and logical gates on the physical qubits of the particular quantum processing unit.”)
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach identifying a minor embedding job that is part of executing the quantum job;
identifying, by a prediction engine, quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job;
However, Dudash teaches identifying a minor embedding job that is part of executing the quantum job; (Dudash [0091]: “each thread block 510 may be configured to generate a new minor embedding solution based on the initial minor embedding solution that was generated by candidate solution generator 504. Each new solution may be unique to the corresponding thread block 510 that generates it.”)
identifying, by a prediction engine, quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job; (Dudash [0087]: “Candidate solution generator 504 may be configured to generate, based on an undirected graph representing a QUBO problem and an undirected graph representing the physical qubit architecture of quantum annealer 514, an initial minor embedding solution.”; and [0075]: “In some embodiments, the undirected graph generated to represent the QUBO problem may be a mathematical representation of a configuration of logical qubits used to solve the QUBO problem. Specifically, the vertices of the undirected graphs may represent the logical qubits while the edges may represent coupling between logical qubits.”; Note: A candidate solution generator 504 is the prediction engine.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Dudash to efficiently allow a quantum annealer to quickly solve many different QUBO problems (Dudash [0005]). Shi and Dudash are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach executing the minor embedding job in a classical computing system; and
However, Vollath teaches executing the minor embedding job in a classical computing system; and (Vollath [0003]: “The process of determining the biases and couplings to use in a particular quantum processor to represent a particular problem is referred to as “minor embedding,” or just “embedding,” and is performed by a classical computer prior to initializing the quantum annealer.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Vollath to accelerate computation of optimal embeddings (Vollath [0004]). Shi and Vollath are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Claim 2 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Shi does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising generating an inference by inputting the minor embedding job to the prediction engine for each of a plurality of quantum computing systems,
wherein the inference indicates which of the plurality of quantum computing system are compatible with the minor embedding job and included in the identified quantum computing systems.
However, Dudash teaches further comprising generating an inference by inputting the minor embedding job to the prediction engine for each of a plurality of quantum computing systems, (Dudash [0091]: “each thread block 510 may be configured to generate a new minor embedding solution based on the initial minor embedding solution that was generated by candidate solution generator 504.”)
wherein the inference indicates which of the plurality of quantum computing system are compatible with the minor embedding job and included in the identified quantum computing systems. (Dudash [0087]: “Candidate solution generator 504 may be configured to generate, based on an undirected graph representing a QUBO problem and an undirected graph representing the physical qubit architecture of quantum annealer 514, an initial minor embedding solution.”; and [0075]: “In some embodiments, the undirected graph generated to represent the QUBO problem may be a mathematical representation of a configuration of logical qubits used to solve the QUBO problem. Specifically, the vertices of the undirected graphs may represent the logical qubits while the edges may represent coupling between logical qubits.”; Note: A candidate solution generator 504 is the prediction engine.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Dudash to efficiently allow a quantum annealer to quickly solve many different QUBO problems (Dudash [0005]). Shi and Dudash are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Claim 3 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Shi teaches wherein the quantum computing systems comprise quantum annealers, (Shi [0073]: “quantum hardware providers 124, 126, 128, and 130 may offer access to run quantum objects on quantum computers that operate based on various different types of quantum computing technologies or paradigms, such as based on quantum annealing, ion-trap, superconductive materials, photons, etc.”)
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the minor embedding job comprises a matrix and
further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems based on a learned relationship between a matrix density of the matrix and hardware configurations of the quantum computing systems.
However, Dudash teaches wherein the minor embedding job comprises a matrix and (Dudash [0062]: “FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary undirected graph and a corresponding adjacency matrix according to some embodiments of the present disclosure.”)
further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems based on a learned relationship between a matrix density of the matrix and hardware configurations of the quantum computing systems. (Dudash [0090]: “Each thread block 510 may comprise a local memory 512. In some embodiments, global memory 508 may receive and store a copy of the initial minor embedding solution. The received initial solution may be represented by an adjacency matrix analogous to adjacency matrix 604 shown in FIG. 6 . Global memory 508 may then transmit a copy of the initial minor embedding solution to each local memory 512 of each thread block 510.”; and [0075]: “the undirected graph generated to represent the QUBO problem may be a mathematical representation of a configuration of logical qubits used to solve the QUBO problem. Specifically, the vertices of the undirected graphs may represent the logical qubits while the edges may represent coupling between logical qubits.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Dudash to efficiently allow a quantum annealer to quickly solve many different QUBO problems (Dudash [0005]). Shi and Dudash are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Claim 7 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Shi teaches further comprising placing the embedding job at a node selected from a plurality of classical computing systems based on resource availability at the classical computing systems. (Shi [0201]: “At block 1908, the quantum circuit compilation service automatically orchestrates the provisioning of computing resources needed to be perform the compilation pass. For example, virtual machines may be instantiated in order to provide necessary computing resources to perform the compilation pass.”)
Claim 8 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Shi teaches further comprising selecting the particular quantum computing system [based on inferences of the prediction engine.] (Shi [0130]: “compilation service 134 may communicate with quantum computing service 102 in order to obtain information associated with the selected quantum hardware provider (e.g., a layout of a particular quantum hardware device, a physical qubit connectivity graph of a particular quantum hardware device, a list of physical qubits and edges for a particular quantum hardware device, etc.), according to some embodiments. Similarly, if a customer selects “select a qubit technology-we'll take care of the rest!” then compilation service 134 may communicate with quantum hardware provider recommendation 122 of quantum computing service 102 in order to recommend one or more quantum hardware providers to the customer, and, upon selection of one of the recommended quantum hardware providers, quantum computing service 102 may then provide physical qubit connectivity information pertaining to a quantum hardware device of the recommended quantum hardware provider to compilation service 134.”)
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach based on inferences of the prediction engine.
However, Dudash teaches based on inferences of the prediction engine. (Dudash [0087]: “Candidate solution generator 504 may be configured to generate, based on an undirected graph representing a QUBO problem and an undirected graph representing the physical qubit architecture of quantum annealer 514, an initial minor embedding solution.”; and [0075]: “In some embodiments, the undirected graph generated to represent the QUBO problem may be a mathematical representation of a configuration of logical qubits used to solve the QUBO problem. Specifically, the vertices of the undirected graphs may represent the logical qubits while the edges may represent coupling between logical qubits.”; Note: A candidate solution generator 504 is the prediction engine.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Dudash to efficiently allow a quantum annealer to quickly solve many different QUBO problems (Dudash [0005]). Shi and Dudash are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Claim 10 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Shi teaches further comprising identifying the compatible quantum computing systems without performing a minor embedding operation at each of the quantum computing systems. (Shi [0130]: “if a customer selects “select a qubit technology-we'll take care of the rest!” then compilation service 134 may communicate with quantum hardware provider recommendation 122 of quantum computing service 102 in order to recommend one or more quantum hardware providers to the customer, and, upon selection of one of the recommended quantum hardware providers, quantum computing service 102 may then provide physical qubit connectivity information pertaining to a quantum hardware device of the recommended quantum hardware provider to compilation service 134.”)
Claim 11 is rejected over Shi, Dudash and Vollath.
Regarding claim 11, Shi teaches a non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: (Shi [0210]: “a plurality of non-transitory computer-readable storage media may collectively store program instructions that when executed on or across one or more processors implement at least a subset of the methods and techniques described above.”)
The remainder of claim 11 is claim 1 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 stated above.
Dependent claim 12 is claim 2 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 13 is claim 3 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 17 is claim 7 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 18 is claim 8 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 20 is claim 10 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Dudash and Vollath in view of Dukatz et al. (CA2997970A1); hereinafter Dukatz
Claim 4 is rejected over Shi, Dudash, Vollath and Dukatz with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Shi does not appear to explicitly teach [wherein the prediction engine is trained to] classify the quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job.
However, Dudash teaches [wherein the prediction engine is trained to] classify the quantum computing systems that are compatible with the minor embedding job. (Dudash [0036]: “computing a probability of the candidate local graph replacing the best local current graph based on the evaluation rating of the candidate local graph and based on the evaluation rating of the best local current graph; and determining whether the replacement criteria are met based on the computed probability.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Dudash to efficiently allow a quantum annealer to quickly solve many different QUBO problems (Dudash [0005]). Shi and Dudash are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the prediction engine is trained to
However, Dukatz teaches wherein the prediction engine is trained to (Dukatz [0004]: “training a machine learning model to route received computational tasks in a system including at least one quantum computing resource, the method including the actions of: obtaining a first set of data, the first set of data comprising data representing multiple computational tasks previously performed by the system; obtaining a second set of data, the second set of data comprising data representing properties associated with using the one or more quantum computing resources to solve the multiple computational tasks;”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the training of Dukatz to learn optimal routings of received computational tasks (Dukatz [00039]). Shi and Dukatz are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Claim 5 is rejected over Shi, Dudash, Vollath and Dukatz with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Shi does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the [classification machine learning model is trained] by executing multiple minor embedding jobs on each of multiple quantum computing systems.
However, Dudash teaches wherein the [classification machine learning model is trained] by executing multiple minor embedding jobs on each of multiple quantum computing systems. (Dudash [0012]: “modifying the best local current graph copy to form the candidate local graph comprises: selecting a first existing placement of a first logical qubit in the physical qubit architecture of the quantum annealer; selecting a second existing placement of a second logical qubit in the physical qubit architecture of the quantum annealer; mapping the first existing placement of the first logical qubit to the second existing placement; and mapping the second existing placement of the second logical qubit to the first existing placement.”; and [0067]: “the computing systems referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs, such as for performing different functions or for increased computing capability.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the minor embedding of Dudash to efficiently allow a quantum annealer to quickly solve many different QUBO problems (Dudash [0005]). Shi and Dudash are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach classification machine learning model is trained
However, Dukatz teaches classification machine learning model is trained (Dukatz [0004]: “training a machine learning model to route received computational tasks in a system including at least one quantum computing resource, the method including the actions of: obtaining a first set of data, the first set of data comprising data representing multiple computational tasks previously performed by the system; obtaining a second set of data, the second set of data comprising data representing properties associated with using the one or more quantum computing resources to solve the multiple computational tasks;”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the training of Dukatz to learn optimal routings of received computational tasks (Dukatz [00039]). Shi and Dukatz are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Dependent claim 14 is claim 4 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 15 is claim 5 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Dudash, Vollath and Dukatz in view of Abohashima et al. (Classification with Quantum Machine Learning: A Survey); hereinafter Abohashima
Claim 6 is rejected over Shi, Dudash, Vollath, Dukatz and Abohashima with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Shi does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising generating a dataset for each of the quantum computing systems, wherein the prediction engine learns a function Fi such that a flag (y) is inferred for an input embedding job (X0) such that [yi=Fi(X0),] wherein the prediction engine comprises a classification machine learning model.
However, Dukatz teaches further comprising generating a dataset for each of the quantum computing systems, wherein the prediction engine learns a function Fi such that a flag (y) is inferred for an input embedding job (X0) such that [yi=Fi(X0),] wherein the prediction engine comprises a classification machine learning model. (Dukatz [00064]: “a previously generated solution may be labelled as a successful solution if the solution was generated within a predetermined acceptable amount of time, and/or if a cost associated with generating the solution was lower than a predetermine threshold. Conversely, a previously generated solution may be labelled as an unsuccessful solution if the solution was not generating within a predetermined acceptable amount of time, and/or if a cost associated with generating the solution was higher than a predetermine threshold.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the training of Dukatz to learn optimal routings of received computational tasks (Dukatz [00039]). Shi and Dukatz are analogous art because they both concern using relevant hardware for quantum jobs.
Shi does not appear to explicitly teach yi=Fi(X0),
However, Abohashima teaches yi=Fi(X0), (Abohashima [3 Quantum Classification Scheme]: “Classification is a popular task in a supervised learning domain that maps given inputs data (x) to discrete target output (y) through a function approximation f as follows y = f(x). The main purpose of classification is an accurate prediction model.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the classification task of Abohashima to effectively solve and improve problems (Abohashima, Abstract). Shi and Abohashima are analogous art because they both concern quantum computing.
Dependent claim 16 is claim 6 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Dudash and Vollath in view of Limberg et al. (US 20210097419 A1); hereinafter Limberg
Claim 9 is rejected over Shi, Dudash, Vollath and Limberg with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Shi does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising excluding quantum computing systems that are not compatible with the minor embedding job from consideration by the orchestration engine for the quantum job.
However, Limberg teaches further comprising excluding quantum computing systems that are not compatible with the minor embedding job from consideration by the orchestration engine for the quantum job. (Limberg [0080]: “, control component 302 can manage (e.g., address, resolve, etc.) responses from the at least one quantum platform (e.g., requests for additional information, execution failure responses, offline responses, etc.).”; [0057]: “Determination component 110 can select at least one quantum platform to execute one or more components of a quantum application based on one or more defined run criteria.”; and [0096]: “quantum platform routing system 102 can therefore enable routing the one or more components the quantum application to one or more quantum platforms comprising quantum hardware and/or quantum software best suited and/or most applicable to execute each component(s) based on the one or more defined run criteria of the one or more components and the features of the quantum platform,”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the quantum orchestration of Shi with the quantum platform routing of Limberg to facilitate improved selection of the quantum routing system (Limberg [0066]). Shi and Limberg are analogous art because they both concern quantum computing and selecting the appropriate quantum hardware.
Dependent claim 19 is claim 9 in the form of a non-transitory storage medium and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the non-transitory storage medium of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at (571) 270-5871. 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.
/DAVID H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights