Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a quantum circuit generation component that generates a quantum circuit defining an atomic system comprising a radical atomic pair that have isotropic hyperfine couplings to three or more groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei; and a quantum operation component that operates the quantum circuit on a set of qubits of a quantum device, wherein excited states of one or more of the qubits of the set of qubits simulate the atomic system” which altogether is an Abstract idea. The limitation of “generating a quantum circuit, operating the quantum circuit, simulating the atomic system” all done using a generic processor or computer is considered data acquisition, data processing in the field of art. The limitations also refer to mathematical algorithm which altogether is an Abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving data, processing data, performing math teaches application of the abstract idea, instead of teaching a particular application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a memory and a processor are generic computer elements that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. See prior arts of record showing these elements are generic and well-known in the field of art: Johnson et al. (US 2023/0289636), Litinski (US 2023/0297866), Gidney et al. (US 2021/0272009).
6. Claims 2-7 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1.
7. Regarding claim 8, the claim(s) recite(s) “generating, by a system operatively coupled to at least one processor, a quantum circuit defining an atomic system comprising a radical atomic pair that have isotropic hyperfine couplings to three or more groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei; and operating, by the system, the quantum circuit on a set of qubits of a quantum device, wherein excited states of one or more of the qubits of the set of qubits simulate the atomic system” which altogether is an Abstract idea. The limitation of “generating a quantum circuit, operating the quantum circuit, simulating the atomic system” all done using a generic processor or computer is considered data acquisition, data processing in the field of art. The limitations also refer to mathematical algorithm which altogether is an Abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving data, processing data, performing math teaches application of the abstract idea, instead of teaching a particular application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a memory and a processor are generic computer elements that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. See prior arts of record showing these elements are generic and well-known in the field of art: Johnson et al. (US 2023/0289636), Litinski (US 2023/0297866), Gidney et al. (US 2021/0272009).
8. Claims 9-14 are also rejected as they further limit claim 8.
9. Regarding claim 15, the claim(s) recite(s) “generate, by the processor, a quantum circuit defining an atomic system comprising a radical atomic pair that have isotropic hyperfine couplings to three or more groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei; and operate, by a quantum processor communicatively coupled to the processor, the quantum circuit on a set of qubits of a quantum device, wherein excited states of one or more of the qubits of the set of qubits simulate the atomic system” which altogether is an Abstract idea. The limitation of “generating a quantum circuit, operating the quantum circuit, simulating the atomic system” all done using a generic processor or computer is considered data acquisition, data processing in the field of art. The limitations also refer to mathematical algorithm which altogether is an Abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving data, processing data, performing math teaches application of the abstract idea, instead of teaching a particular application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a memory and a processor are generic computer elements that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. See prior arts of record showing these elements are generic and well-known in the field of art: Johnson et al. (US 2023/0289636), Litinski (US 2023/0297866), Gidney et al. (US 2021/0272009).
10. Claims 16-21 are also rejected as they further limit claim 15.
11. Regarding claim 22, the claim(s) recite(s) “ a quantum circuit generation component that instructs execution of a quantum gate of a quantum circuit by generating a quantum circuit based on a plurality of groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei of an atomic system and based on a set of parameters comprising an exact parameterization of a magnetic field strength acting on the atomic system, an exact parameterization of hyperfine coupling constants of the atomic system, and an exact parameterization of a pair of Landég-factors of the atomic system, wherein the exact parameterizations are expressed by a finite number of digits; a quantum operation component that operates the quantum circuit on a set of qubits; and an analysis component that, based on a measurement readout of a plurality of states of the set of qubits, generates a set of results defining a Hamiltonian time evolution of the radical atomic pairs” which altogether is an Abstract idea. The limitation of “generating a quantum circuit, operating the quantum circuit, generating set of results” all done using a generic processor or computer is considered data acquisition, data processing in the field of art. The limitations also refer to mathematical algorithm which altogether is an Abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving data, processing data, performing math teaches application of the abstract idea, instead of teaching a particular application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a memory and a processor are generic computer elements that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. See prior arts of record showing these elements are generic and well-known in the field of art: Johnson et al. (US 2023/0289636), Litinski (US 2023/0297866), Gidney et al. (US 2021/0272009).
12. Claim 23 is also rejected as it further limits claim 22.
13. Regarding claim 24, the claim(s) recite(s) “a memory that stores computer executable components, and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise a quantum circuit generation component that instructs execution of a set of quantum gates of a quantum circuit by generating the quantum circuit based on a plurality of groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei of an atomic system, wherein the atomic system comprises a plurality of radical atomic pairs having isotropic hyperfine couplings to three or more groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei of the plurality of groups of magnetically equivalent nuclei of the atomic system; and a quantum system comprising a quantum processor comprising a set of qubits, and a quantum operation component that operates the quantum circuit on the set of qubits” which altogether is an Abstract idea. The limitation of “generating a quantum circuit, operating the quantum circuits” all done using a generic processor or computer is considered data acquisition, data processing in the field of art. The limitations also refer to mathematical algorithm which altogether is an Abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving data, processing data, performing math teaches application of the abstract idea, instead of teaching a particular application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a memory and a processor are generic computer elements that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. See prior arts of record showing these elements are generic and well-known in the field of art: Johnson et al. (US 2023/0289636), Litinski (US 2023/0297866), Gidney et al. (US 2021/0272009).
14. Claim 25 is also rejected as it further limits claim 24.
Note: no prior art rejection is made at the moment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights