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 .
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:
“embedding mechanism” in claim 16 – The Specification describes the embedding mechanism as an autoencoder. The embedding mechanism is interpreted as an autoencoder or an equivalent thereof.
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 3, 5, 13, and 15 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, “a QUBO configuration” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the previous recitation of “a QUBO configuration” or if a new configuration is claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, “a quantum annealer” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the previous recitation of “a quantum annealer” or if a new configuration is claimed.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, “a solution” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to the previous recitation of “a solution” or if a new configuration is claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, there are no definitions given for any of the variables or indices of the equation. Therefore, it is not clear what the equation is stating with respect to the QUBO configuration.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the analysis, each of claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 is drawn to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
“determining a current matrix configuration associated with the quantum job” - This constitutes a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
“identifying transactions stored in a database that include matrix configurations similar to the current matrix configuration” - This constitutes a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
“generating a warm start matrix configuration that includes a solution associated with a first matrix configuration stored in the first transaction” - This constitutes a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“receiving a quantum job at an orchestration engine” - This amounts to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d), II, (i), regarding receiving or transmitting data.
“selecting a first transaction from the transactions” - This amounts to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“executing the warm start matrix configuration in a quantum annealer identified in the first transaction” - This amounts to mere application of the exception on a computer, i.e. a recitation of the words “apply it”. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“receiving a quantum job at an orchestration engine” - This amounts to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d), II, (i), regarding receiving or transmitting data.
“selecting a first transaction from the transactions” - This amounts to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“executing the warm start matrix configuration in a quantum annealer identified in the first transaction” - This amounts to mere application of the exception on a computer, i.e. a recitation of the words “apply it”. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 2 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 2 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 3 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 3 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 4 recites the following abstract ideas:
“incorporating the solution included in the first transaction into the QUBO configuration to generate the warm start configuration, which includes a warm-start QUBO configuration.” - This constitutes a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 4 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 4 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 5 recites the following abstract ideas:
“the warm-start QUBO configuration is represented as:
H
t
=
0
,
x
=
x
i
*
=
α
t
∙
x
T
Q
i
x
+
β
t
∙
(
x
T
Q
x
)
- A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I, B. The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 5 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 5 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 6 recites the following abstract ideas:
“generating embedded QUBO configurations using an embedding mechanism, wherein the transactions include the embedded QUBO configurations.” - This constitutes a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 6 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 6 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 8 recites the following abstract ideas:
“generating a current embedded QUBO configuration from the current matrix configuration, wherein the transactions are identified by comparing the current embedded QUBO configuration with embedded QUBO configurations stored in the transactions.” - This constitutes a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Furthermore, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 8 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 8 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 9 recites the following abstract ideas:
“identifying k similar transactions based on a cosine distance metric.” - A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I, B. The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.’’ Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ at 199.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 9 does not provide any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 9 does not provide any additional elements.
Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 10 recites the following abstract ideas:
The abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
“updating the database with a new transaction that includes the warm start matrix configuration, the quantum annealer, a solution to the current quantum job, and parameters.” - This amounts to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d), II, (i), regarding receiving or transmitting data.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
“updating the database with a new transaction that includes the warm start matrix configuration, the quantum annealer, a solution to the current quantum job, and parameters.” - This amounts to insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and MPEP 2106.05(d), II, (i), regarding receiving or transmitting data.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claims 11-16 and 18-20 recite the abstract ideas noted in the analysis of their corresponding claims from claims 1-6 and 8-10
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 11-16 and 18-20 provide the following additional element:
“A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations” - This amounts to mere application of the exception on a computer, i.e. a recitation of the words “apply it”. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claims 11-16 and 18-20 provide the following additional element:
“A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations” - This amounts to mere application of the exception on a computer, i.e. a recitation of the words “apply it”. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suguiura (US20220327479A1) in view of Yoneoka (US20210286328A1).
Regarding claim 11, Suguiura teaches a non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations(¶101, “Implementations of the digital and/or quantum subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more digital and/or quantum computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of digital and/or quantum computer program instructions encoded on a tangible non-transitory storage medium [a non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations] for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus.”) comprising:
receiving a quantum job at an orchestration engine (Figure 1, 114, “BOM Optimization Problem and constraints” [receiving a quantum job], Figure 1, 100, “BOM Recommendation System” [at an orchestration engine]);
determining a current matrix configuration associated with the quantum job (¶67, “The Hamiltonian function Q encodes the problem constraints [determining a current matrix configuration associated with the quantum job], as described in more detail below.”); and
executing the matrix configuration in a quantum annealer (¶46, “In some implementations the quantum computing resource 112 can be a quantum annealer [executing the matrix configuration in a quantum annealer]”).
Suguiura does not teach:
identifying transactions stored in a database that include matrix configurations similar to the current matrix configuration;
selecting a first transaction from the transactions;
generating a warm start matrix configuration that includes a solution associated with a first matrix configuration stored in the first transaction; and
executing the warm start matrix configuration in a quantum annealer identified in the first transaction.
Yoneoka teaches:
identifying transactions stored in a database that include matrix configurations similar to the current matrix configuration (¶76, “The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 search for the solutions by using the respective accelerators 142, 152, 162, and 172. [identifying transactions stored in a database] The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 preferentially retain a predetermined number of solutions having small energy values among the solutions obtained up to a current point in time in the respective solution pools 141, 151, 161, and 171.”, ¶77, “The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 supply solutions having a minimum energy value retained in the respective solution pools 141, 151, 161, and 171, for example, the best solutions to the solution propagation unit 180 [that include configurations similar to the current configuration]. The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 may replace the best solutions retained in the respective solution pools 141, 151, 161, and 171 with the solution supplied from the solution propagation unit 180.”
selecting a first transaction from the transactions (¶77, “The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 supply solutions having a minimum energy value retained in the respective solution pools 141, 151, 161, and 171, for example, the best solutions to the solution propagation unit 180 [selecting a first transaction from the transactions]. The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 may replace the best solutions retained in the respective solution pools 141, 151, 161, and 171 with the solution supplied from the solution propagation unit 180.”);
generating a warm start matrix configuration that includes a solution associated with a first matrix configuration stored in the first transaction (¶81, “The solution propagation unit 180 supplies a solution having a minimum energy value among the solutions retained in the solution buffer 181 [generating a warm start configuration that includes a solution associated with a first configuration stored in the first transaction], for example, the best solution in the solution buffer 181 to the search units 140, 150, 160, and 170.”); and
executing the warm start matrix configuration in a quantum annealer identified in the first transaction (¶162, “…Thus, the start states of the next searches of the respective search units are generated based on the best solutions selected from the solution pools of the respective search units [executing the warm start configuration identified in the first transaction], and thus, the best solutions in all the search units at a certain timing are reflected in the start states of the next searches of the respective search units”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yoneoka into Suguiura such that solutions, i.e. matrix configurations, are stored in a database and are selected for warm starting the process of Suguiura in order to improve solution finding performance (Yoneoka at ¶163, “Accordingly, a possibility of reaching the optimal solution in any of the search units is increased, and the solution finding performance is improved compared to a case where the individual accelerators are independently operated.”)
Regarding claim 12, Suguiura as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, wherein
the current matrix configuration comprises a QUBO configuration (¶67, “The QUBO formulation also includes a Hamiltonian function represented by a matrix Q [the current matrix configuration comprises a QUBO configuration]”).
Regarding claim 13, Suguiura as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, wherein each of the transactions comprises
a QUBO configuration, a quantum annealer, a solution, and parameters (¶67, “The QUBO formulation also includes a Hamiltonian function represented by a matrix Q [a QUBO configuration]”, Yoneoka at ¶162, “…Thus, the start states of the next searches of the respective search units are generated based on the best solutions selected from the solution pools of the respective search units [a solution, and parameters”, ¶46, “In some implementations the quantum computing resource 112 can be a quantum annealer [a quantum annealer]”)]).
Regarding claim 14, Suguiura as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, further comprising
incorporating the solution included in the first transaction into the QUBO configuration to generate the warm start configuration, which includes a warm-start QUBO configuration (see rejection of claim 11, which generates a warm-start QUBO configuration, which means the solution is incorporated into the QUBO configuration to generate the warm start configuration).
Regarding claim 20, Suguiura as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, but does not teach updating the database with a new transaction that includes the warm start matrix configuration, the quantum annealer, a solution to the current quantum job, and parameters.
Yoneoka teaches updating the database with a new transaction that includes the warm start configuration, a solution to the current job, and parameters (¶77, “The search units 140, 150, 160, and 170 may replace the best solutions retained in the respective solution pools 141, 151, 161, and 171 with the solution supplied from the solution propagation unit 180 [updating the database with a new transaction that includes the warm start configuration, a solution, and parameters]”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Yoneoka in Suguiura such that Suguiura includes updating the database with a new transaction that includes the warm start matrix configuration, the quantum annealer, a solution to the current quantum job, and parameters in order to allow for the selection of the most recent best solution.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 10, Suguiura as modified according to claims 11-14 and 20 performs the method of claims 1-4 and 10 under normal operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the prior art does not disclose the particular QUBO configuration described by the claimed equation in a fashion in which it would be obvious to incorporate it into the teachings of Suguiura and Yonoeka.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, “embedding mechanism” is interpreted as an autoencoder herein under 35 USC 112(f) and the prior art does not disclose an autoencoder such that it would be obvious to generate embedded QUBO configurations described by Suguiura in view of Yonoeka using an autoencoder.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, dependence on claims 6 and 16 render them allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roy (US20140250288A1) discloses embedding QUBO configurations such that they can run on quantum annealers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights