DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 11 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 11 are rejected.
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 .
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The specification, including paragraphs [0066], [0067], and [0069] recite element “210”, but the element number is not found in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 700 in FIG. 7 is not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 5 - 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a node allocation program at the time of quantum simulation execution for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:
specifying a second quantum circuit of which a feature amount regarding communication is similar to a first quantum circuit used for a first quantum simulation, with reference to a first memory that stores a feature amount regarding communication of a quantum circuit, for each quantum circuit used for a quantum simulation;
calculating a predicted execution time of the first quantum simulation in a case where the number of nodes are allocated for each of a plurality of numbers of nodes, with reference to a second memory that stores a measured execution time for each number of nodes allocated to a quantum simulation in the past by using the specified second quantum circuit; and
determining the number of nodes to be allocated to the first quantum simulation, from among the plurality of numbers of nodes, based on the calculated predicted execution time, according to an allocation status of a quantum simulation for a node group that is usable for the first quantum simulation.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “specifying a second quantum circuit of which a feature amount regarding communication is similar to a first quantum circuit used for a first quantum simulation, with reference to a first memory that stores a feature amount regarding communication of a quantum circuit, for each quantum circuit used for a quantum simulation”, “calculating a predicted execution time of the first quantum simulation in a case where the number of nodes are allocated for each of a plurality of numbers of nodes, with reference to a second memory that stores a measured execution time for each number of nodes allocated to a quantum simulation in the past by using the specified second quantum circuit” and “determining the number of nodes to be allocated to the first quantum simulation, from among the plurality of numbers of nodes, based on the calculated predicted execution time, according to an allocation status of a quantum simulation for a node group that is usable for the first quantum simulation” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation " “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide a judgement of data to identify a feature of a quantum circuit that corresponds to another quantum circuit, provide an evaluation using data from the quantum circuits from a simulation to perform a calculation to estimate execution time, and using data pertaining to the quantum circuit in an evaluation to determine the amount of nodes in terms of a number for a simulation to be performed.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only recites computer components, in the form of a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and the language merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is not more than merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and mere data gathering. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and computer recited to perform the abstract idea simply adds generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 10, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 10 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 10 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
A node allocation method at the time of quantum simulation execution comprising:
specifying a second quantum circuit of which a feature amount regarding communication is similar to a first quantum circuit used for a first quantum simulation, with reference to a first memory that stores a feature amount regarding communication of a quantum circuit, for each quantum circuit used for a quantum simulation;
calculating a predicted execution time of the first quantum simulation in a case where the number of nodes are allocated for each of a plurality of numbers of nodes, with reference to a second memory that stores a measured execution time for each number of nodes allocated to a quantum simulation in the past by using the specified second quantum circuit; and
determining the number of nodes to be allocated to the first quantum simulation, from among the plurality of numbers of nodes, based on the calculated predicted execution time, according to an allocation status of a quantum simulation for a node group that is usable for the first quantum simulation.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “specifying a second quantum circuit of which a feature amount regarding communication is similar to a first quantum circuit used for a first quantum simulation, with reference to a first memory that stores a feature amount regarding communication of a quantum circuit, for each quantum circuit used for a quantum simulation”, “calculating a predicted execution time of the first quantum simulation in a case where the number of nodes are allocated for each of a plurality of numbers of nodes, with reference to a second memory that stores a measured execution time for each number of nodes allocated to a quantum simulation in the past by using the specified second quantum circuit” and “determining the number of nodes to be allocated to the first quantum simulation, from among the plurality of numbers of nodes, based on the calculated predicted execution time, according to an allocation status of a quantum simulation for a node group that is usable for the first quantum simulation” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation " “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide a judgement of data to identify a feature of a quantum circuit that corresponds to another quantum circuit, provide an evaluation using data from the quantum circuits from a simulation to perform a calculation to estimate execution time, and using data pertaining to the quantum circuit in an evaluation to determine the amount of nodes in terms of a number for a simulation to be performed.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract does not provide additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception the claim does not provide additional elements to integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 10 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 11, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 11 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 11 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
An information processing device comprising:
a first memory;
a second memory; and
a processor coupled to the first memory and the second memory and configured to:
specify a second quantum circuit of which a feature amount regarding communication is similar to a first quantum circuit used for a first quantum simulation, with reference to the first memory that stores a feature amount regarding communication of a quantum circuit, for each quantum circuit used for a quantum simulation;
calculate a predicted execution time of the first quantum simulation in a case where the number of nodes are allocated for each of a plurality of numbers of nodes, with reference to the second memory that stores a measured execution time for each number of nodes allocated to a quantum simulation in the past by using the specified second quantum circuit; and
determine the number of nodes to be allocated to the first quantum simulation, from among the plurality of numbers of nodes, based on the calculated predicted execution time, according to an allocation status of a quantum simulation for a node group that is usable for the first quantum simulation.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “specify a second quantum circuit of which a feature amount regarding communication is similar to a first quantum circuit used for a first quantum simulation, with reference to the first memory that stores a feature amount regarding communication of a quantum circuit, for each quantum circuit used for a quantum simulation”, “calculate a predicted execution time of the first quantum simulation in a case where the number of nodes are allocated for each of a plurality of numbers of nodes, with reference to the second memory that stores a measured execution time for each number of nodes allocated to a quantum simulation in the past by using the specified second quantum circuit” and “determine the number of nodes to be allocated to the first quantum simulation, from among the plurality of numbers of nodes, based on the calculated predicted execution time, according to an allocation status of a quantum simulation for a node group that is usable for the first quantum simulation” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation " “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could mentally provide a judgement of data to identify a feature of a quantum circuit that corresponds to another quantum circuit, provide an evaluation using data from the quantum circuits from a simulation to perform a calculation to estimate execution time, and using data pertaining to the quantum circuit in an evaluation to determine the amount of nodes in terms of a number for a simulation to be performed.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only recites computer components, in the form of a information processing device, first memory, second memory, and a processor, and the language merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is not more than merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and mere data gathering. An information processing device, first memory, second memory, and a processor, recited to perform the abstract idea simply adds generic computer components after the fact to an abstract idea.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 11 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 2 recites a mental process, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation " “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person could perform an evaluation using data from a simulation performed to determine the time at which the execution of the quantum simulation starts, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 5, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 5 recites a description of the feature amount in the evaluation to identify a feature of a quantum circuit that corresponds to another quantum circuit, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 6 merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, as the computer is recited at a level of generality that is merely used to perform processes based on the evaluations performed, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 7, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 7 recites additional mental processes performed, including a judgement of whether memory stores previous execution times for nodes in the quantum simulation, in regards to the execution time measured, and an additional mental process of performing an additional calculation of execution time of a quantum simulation performed, using data including the measured execution time data stored in memory, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to a mental process, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to a mental process above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 8 merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, as the computer is recited to store data regarding the execution time obtained and an evaluation resulting in the number of nodes from the previous steps performed, without providing any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 11 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 lack antecedent basis for “at the time of quantum simulation” (Claim 1, lines 2; Claim 10, line 1).
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the claims to recite “at a time of quantum simulation”.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 lack antecedent basis for “the number of nodes” (Claim 1, lines 10; Claim 10, line 9; Claim 11, line 12).
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the claims to recite “a number of nodes”.
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 11 lacks antecedent basis for “quantum simulation in the past” (Claim 1, lines 12 - 13; Claim 7, line 4; Claim 10, lines 11 - 12; Claim 11, lines 14 - 15).
Dependent claims 2 - 6, 8 and 9 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Suggested language: Amend the claims to recite “a previous quantum simulation”.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the earliest” (Claim 2, line 5).
Suggested language: Amend the language to recite “an earliest”.
Claims 2 - 4 and 9 lack antecedent basis for “the determining processing” (Claim 2, line 3; claim 4, line 7; claim 9, line 8).
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 9 lack antecedent basis for “the calculating processing” (Claim 3, line 5; claim 4, line 3; claim 7, line 6; claim 9, line 5).
The term “similar” in claims 1, 10 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear in the claim how close in terms of a value or tolerance the feature amount for the second quantum circuit needs to be in order for the second quantum circuit to be similar to the first quantum circuit. The term “similar” is unclear, ad renders the clam vague and indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and claims 1, 2, 5 - 8, 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of Steiger et al (U.S. PG Pub 2022/0067245 A1) discloses a quantum simulation with freedom from the dictation of the quantum circuit, and an execution time dependent on qubit bit-order, Mazzola et al (WO 2022118291 A1) discloses allocation of exchange times between nodes, using an optimized sub-graph to assign connection between nodes and intermediate nodes, Durazzo et al (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0406151 A1) discloses a runtime cluster with statistics including execution time and memory space consumed in the quantum computing services, using estimations from historical information, Yamazaki (JP 2013140490 A) discloses a total amount of nodes for parallel computing, with a job identified is associated with each of the nodes, the time calculated for the jobs assigned to each node to be completed in total, a storage unit storing a table for recording the time for each job, computing the execution time based using the job time for the parallelism to occur, estimating if the execution time is at a value or higher, and a job time using the nodes in one table has not exceeded the execution time in a different table.) and Huang et al (“Classical Simulation of Quantum Supremacy Circuits”) discloses execution of quantum circuits, using execution time on one computational node to obtain an execution time on a cluster.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Steiger, Mazzola, Durazzo, Yamazaki, and Huang, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses for claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, for claim 10: A node allocation method, and for claim 11: An information processing device, including the steps of obtaining a predicted execution time based on a previous execution time for each of the nodes allocated to a quantum simulation with a particular quantum circuit and using the execution time obtained and the condition of the number of nodes available for a quantum simulation to acquire the number of nodes needed for performing a quantum simulation, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 1, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
October 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights