DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 30, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
4. Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes, and Claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
5. Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, and 11: The limitations of “receiving a user job that comprises a quantum computing workload; evaluating the quantum computing workload; based on the evaluating, solving an orchestration optimization problem by identifying a computing resource for execution of the quantum computing workload, and the computing resource is selected from a defined group of computing resources of a computing infrastructure; and orchestrating the quantum computing workload to the computing resource for execution.”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that a user job that comprises a quantum computing workload is received. Next, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate the quantum computing workload. Moreover, based on the evaluating, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate the solving of an orchestration optimization problem that involves identifying computing resource(s) for execution of the quantum computing workload. For example, a person can receive a quantum computing workload and mentally determine what resources are needed. Next, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the computing resource is selected from a defined group of computing resources of a computing infrastructure. For example, a person can see that a specific resource is chosen from a group/pool of resources. This can be mentally observed. Lastly, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the quantum computing workload is orchestrated to the computing resource for execution. This is essentially scheduling the workload to the resource for execution, and scheduling is an abstract process that can be done in the mind. Execution is not explicitly said to be done.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
6. Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 11: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “A method, comprising:” and “A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising:”, which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
7. Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 11: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 11 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
8. With regard to claims 2 and 12, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the defined group of computing resources comprises a classical computing resource, a gate-based computing resource, and an annealing resource”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the defined group of computing resources comprises a classical computing resource, a gate-based computing resource, and an annealing resource. Additionally, defining the technical environment is no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 2 and 12 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 12 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 2 and 12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
9. With regard to claims 3 and 13, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the evaluating identifies a problem type of the computing workload”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that evaluating means identifying a problem type of the computing workload. For example, a person can mentally observe a computing workload and determine what type of problem it is. Further, claims 3 and 13 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 13 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 3 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
10. With regard to claims 4 and 14, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein, as between the computing resources of the defined group, the selected computing resource is best suited to execute the quantum computing workload”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the computing resource that is best suited to execute the quantum computing workload is selected from the resources of the defined group. Further, claims 4 and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 4 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
11. With regard to claims 5 and 15, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein more than one of the computing resources in the defined group is capable of executing the quantum computing workload”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that more than one of the computing resources in the defined group is capable of executing the quantum computing workload. For example a person can mentally observe that multiple resources in a resource pool are able to execute the quantum computing workload. Further, claims 5 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 5 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
12. With regard to claims 6 and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the user job is received by an intermediate classical computing layer of a hybrid quantum computing configuration”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the user job is received by the intermediate classical computing layer of a hybrid quantum computing configuration. Additionally, defining the technical environment is no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 6 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 6 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13. With regard to claims 7 and 17, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein, prior to the orchestrating, the computing resource is allocated to the quantum computing workload”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that prior to the orchestrating the computing resource is allocated to the quantum computing workload. Further, claims 7 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 7 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
14. With regard to claims 8 and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the quantum computing workload comprises an optimization problem”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the quantum computing workload comprises and optimization problem. Additionally, defining the technical environment is no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 8 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 8 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
15. With regard to claims 9 and 19, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the computing resource to which the quantum computing workload is orchestrated comprises a gate-based quantum device”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the computing resource to which the quantum computing workload is orchestrated comprises a gate-based quantum device. Additionally, defining the technical environment is no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 9 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 9 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
16. With regard to claims 10 and 20, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the orchestration optimization problem is solved by an annealer”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the orchestration optimization problem is solved by an annealer. Additionally, defining the technical environment is no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 10 and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 10 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 10 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
17. Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
18. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. CN 114444700 A in view of Harrigan et al. US 11574030 B1.
19. With regard to claim 1, Guo teaches:
A method, comprising:
receiving a user job that comprises a quantum computing workload (s1: the cloud server receives a quantum computing request of a user;);
evaluating the quantum computing workload (s2: judging the request type of the user: including an immediate computing request or a non-immediate computing request; if the instant computation request is requested, go to step S3; otherwise, go to step S4;);
based on the evaluating, solving an orchestration optimization problem by identifying a computing resource for execution of the quantum computing workload, and the computing resource is selected from a defined group of computing resources of a computing infrastructure (The invention claims a quantum cloud computing platform operation scheduling and resource allocation method, the method can optimize resource utilization rate and request success rate, avoid resource shortage and resource waste condition; s3: checking whether a computing center at the current moment t has computing resources meeting the computing request, if so, entering a step S5, otherwise, the computing request fails, and returning failure information to the user by the cloud platform); and
Although Guo teaches allocating computing resources for the user (s5: the computing center creates a virtual machine for the instant computing request, allocates computing resources for the user and returns a computing result in real time), Guo fails to explicitly teach orchestrating the quantum computing workload to the computing resource for execution.
However, in analogous art, Harrigan teaches:
orchestrating the quantum computing workload to the computing resource for execution (Col. 3, lines 66 – Col. 4, lines 3, In some implementations, the server 108 generates computing jobs, identifies an appropriate computing resource (e.g., a QPU or QVM) in the computing environment 101 to execute the computing job, and sends the computing job to the identified resource for execution; Examiner’s Note: Sending the computing jobs for execution is analogous with orchestrating.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan to orchestrate the quantum computing workload to the computing resource for execution. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. In order for the quantum computing workload to be executed, the computing job has to be sent to the identified resources. By orchestrating, or sending, the quantum computing jobs to the identified resources for execution, the quantum workloads are able to be efficiently completed.
20. With regard to claim 2, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein the defined group of computing resources comprises a classical computing resource, a gate-based computing resource, and an annealing resource (Col. 9, lines 41-65, In some instances, the computing environment 101 can be used to solve optimization problems such as, for example, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problems. In some examples, a first computing resource computes a first part of the solution to the optimization problem, and a second computing resource computes a second part of the solution to the optimization problem. The second computing resource can find the second part of the solution, for instance, by processing a reduced form of the optimization problem. The reduced form of the optimization problem can represent a portion of the optimization problem that is not fixed by the first part of the solution. In some cases, the first computing resource is a classical (digital or non-quantum) resource (e.g., a controller in a QPU 103, or one of the other computing resources 107), and the second computing resource is a quantum resource (e.g., a quantum annealing processor, a gate-based quantum processor), a hybrid classical/quantum resource, a virtual quantum resource, etc. In some instances, the first computing resource effectively reduces the size of the optimization problem to a size that can be processed by the second computing resource. For instance, a minimum size for the first part of the solution can be specified such that the reduced form of the optimization problem is a size that can be processed by the second computing resource.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein the defined group of computing resources comprises a classical computing resource, a gate-based computing resource, and an annealing resource. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. The resources include a classical (digital or non-quantum) resource (e.g., a controller in a QPU 103, or one of the other computing resources 107), and the second computing resource is a quantum resource (e.g., a quantum annealing processor, a gate-based quantum processor), a hybrid classical/quantum resource, a virtual quantum resource, etc., as discussed in Harrigan (Col. 9, lines 53-58). Together, Guo and Harrigan show how these specific resources help solve optimization problems.
21. With regard to claim 3, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein the evaluating identifies a problem type of the computing workload (Col. 6, lines 50-59, In some implementations, the example quantum processor cell 102A can process quantum information by applying control signals to the qubits in the quantum processor cell 102A. The control signals can be configured to encode information in the qubits, to process the information by performing quantum logic gates or other types of operations, or to extract information from the qubits. In some examples, the operations can be expressed as single-qubit logic gates, two-qubit logic gates, or other types of quantum logic gates that operate on one or more qubits. A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a hardware test, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations; Col. 9, lines 41-50, In some instances, the computing environment 101 can be used to solve optimization problems such as, for example, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problems. In some examples, a first computing resource computes a first part of the solution to the optimization problem, and a second computing resource computes a second part of the solution to the optimization problem. The second computing resource can find the second part of the solution, for instance, by processing a reduced form of the optimization problem.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein the evaluating identifies a problem type of the computing workload. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. The quantum processor cell applies control signals in order to extract information from qubits, which help determine the computational task, as discussed in Harrigan (Col. 6, lines 50-59). Additionally, Harrigan teaches of an example where the computational problem is a QUBO problem. By knowing the type of problem, appropriate resources are able to be allocated; therefore ensuring that the optimal amount of resources is used.
22. With regard to claim 5, Guo further teaches:
wherein more than one of the computing resources in the defined group is capable of executing the quantum computing workload (Because the total quantum computing resource is not changed, the instant computing job will occupy a certain number of computing resources, the remaining computing resources can be used for distributing to the non-instant computing task. by recording and counting the probability distribution of the instant calculation task distributed in the resource occupation, can predict the available resource in the specific time period, so as to scientifically distribute the non-instant calculation operation, avoiding the resource is not enough and resource waste condition occurs; Examiner’s Note: Resources are divided into instant computing resources and non-instant computing resources. Both groups are able to execute the quantum computing workload.).
23. With regard to claim 6, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein the user job is received by an intermediate classical computing layer of a hybrid quantum computing configuration (Col. 4, lines 43-50, In some implementations, all or part of the computing environment 101 operates as a hybrid computing environment, and the server 108 operates as a host system for the hybrid environment. For example, the programs 112 can be formatted as hybrid computing programs, which include instructions for execution by one or more quantum processor units and instructions that can be executed by another type of computing resource; Col. 10, lines 62-66, At 204 in the example process 200 a branch-and-bound QUBO solver is executed by a classical computing resource. For example, a classical processor unit may receive a first data structure that represents the optimization problem (the mapped QUBO problem); Examiner’s Note: The computing environment is a hybrid computing environment. The classical processer receives the optimization problem.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein the user job is received by an intermediate classical computing layer of a hybrid quantum computing configuration. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. In some cases, certain quantum problems can be difficult to solve with solely classical computing resources. However, classical computing can help reduce complex optimization problems. The use of classical and quantum resources can be balanced to improve the speed or efficiency of solving the optimization problem. For instance, a classical computing resource may be used to reduce an optimization problem to a smaller size, and the reduced optimization problem may be solved using a quantum computing resource, as discussed in Harrigan (Col. 2, lines 24-29). By having the user job be initially received by the classical computing layer, the optimization problem can be simplified in order to be efficiently solved by other resources.
24. With regard to claim 7, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein, prior to the orchestrating, the computing resource is allocated to the quantum computing workload (Col. 3, lines 66 – Col. 4, lines 3, In some implementations, the server 108 generates computing jobs, identifies an appropriate computing resource (e.g., a QPU or QVM) in the computing environment 101 to execute the computing job, and sends the computing job to the identified resource for execution; Examiner’s Note: The resources are allocated prior to the sending, which is analogous to orchestrating.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein, prior to the orchestrating, the computing resource is allocated to the quantum computing workload. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. In order for quantum computing workloads to be sent to resources, those resources need to be allocated to the workload first. Harrigan teaches that prior to the sending of computing jobs to the identified resources, those resources are identified, or allocated, to the quantum computing job, as discussed in Harrigan (Col. 3, lines 66 – Col. 4, lines 3). By allocating resources to the quantum computing job, the job/workload is able to use those resources accordingly.
25. With regard to claim 8, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein the quantum computing workload comprises an optimization problem (Col. 3, lines 66 – Col. 4, lines 3, In some implementations, the server 108 generates computing jobs, identifies an appropriate computing resource (e.g., a QPU or QVM) in the computing environment 101 to execute the computing job, and sends the computing job to the identified resource for execution; Col. 9, lines 31-35, In some instances, the computing environment 101 can use a classical computing resource to reduce a problem to a size or format that can be more efficiently processed by a quantum computing resource. In some cases, the problem is an optimization problem.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein the quantum computing workload comprises an optimization problem. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. A computing workload is a broad term that can include any task designed to run on quantum computers. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art can deduce that an optimization problem is a type of computing workload.
26. With regard to claim 9, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein the computing resource to which the quantum computing workload is orchestrated comprises a gate-based quantum device (Col. 5, lines 54-67, In some implementations, a quantum processor unit (e.g., QPU 103A or QPU 103B) can operate using gate-based models for quantum computing. For example, the qubits can be initialized in an initial state, and a quantum logic circuit comprised of a series of quantum logic gates can be applied to transform the qubits and extract measurements representing the output of the quantum computation. In some implementations, a quantum processor unit (e.g., QPU 103A or QPU 103B) can operate using adiabatic or annealing models for quantum computing. For instance, the qubits can be initialized in an initial state, and the controlling Hamiltonian can be transformed adiabatically by adjusting control parameters to another state that can be measured to obtain an output of the quantum computation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein the computing resource to which the quantum computing workload is orchestrated comprises a gate-based quantum device. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. Harrigan mentions that classical computing resources can be combined with other resources in order to solve complex optimization problems. One example is a gate-based approach, which is described in Harrigan (Col. 5, lines 54-67). By having a gate-based model or device, it allows the environment to solve a wide variety of problems.
27. With regard to claim 10, Harrigan further teaches:
wherein the orchestration optimization problem is solved by an annealer (Col. 10, lines 38-52, FIG. 2 is a flow chart showing an example hybrid classical-quantum computing process 200. Operations in the example process 200 may be performed, for instance, by one or more components of the example computing environment 101 shown in FIG. 1. For example, the process 200 may be performed by the QPU 103, or by the QPU 103 and the server 108, or by the QPU and one or more of the additional computing resources 107. In the example shown in FIG. 2, operations performed on a classical processor are indicated by solid lines, operations performed by hybrid classical/quantum systems are indicated by lines having dashes separated by double dots. In some implementations of the example process 200, certain operations (indicated by dashed lines in FIG. 2) may be performed by an annealing quantum processor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo with the teachings of Harrigan wherein the orchestration optimization problem is solved by an annealer. Both Guo and Harrigan teach of solving optimization problems for quantum computing. Guo teaches of allocating resources to quantum computing workloads in order to minimize resource waste. Similarly, Harrigan teaches how resources are used for optimization problems. Harrigan mentions that classical computing resources can be combined with other resources in order to solve complex optimization problems. One example is with an annealer, which is described in Harrigan (Col. 10, lines 38-52). By having a gate-based model or device, it allows the environment to solve a wide variety of problems.
28. Regarding claim 11, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
29. Regarding claim 12, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
30. Regarding claim 13, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
31. Regarding claim 15, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
32. Regarding claim 16, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
33. Regarding claim 17, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
34. Regarding claim 18, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
35. Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
36. Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
37. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. CN 114444700 A and Harrigan et al. US 11574030 B1, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Griffin et al. US 20240143398 A1.
38. With regard to claim 4, Guo and Harrigan teach the method as recited in claim 1 but fail to explicitly teach wherein, as between the computing resources of the defined group, the selected computing resource is best suited to execute the quantum computing workload.
However, in analogous art, Griffin teaches:
wherein, as between the computing resources of the defined group, the selected computing resource is best suited to execute the quantum computing workload ([0002] By leveraging the quantum validation information, the access granting entity can make a more efficient decision as to whether to grant or deny quantum computing resource access to a requesting entity; [0003] The method includes obtaining quantum validation information, wherein the quantum validation information is descriptive of one or more of characteristics of the requesting entity, characteristics of the quantum computing resource, a current state of a quantum computing device that implements the quantum computing resource, and/or a predicted state of the quantum computing device associated with access of the quantum computing resource by the requesting entity. The method includes providing the quantum validation information to the access granting entity for the decision whether to grant quantum computing resource access to the requesting entity; [0034] In such fashion, the quantum validation information 52 can facilitate calculation of a performance cost associated with provision of access to the quantum computing resource by the access granting entity 20. For example, if the quantum validation information 52 describes a current temperature of qubits 26 and a predicted temperature of qubits 26 following access of the quantum computing resource, the access granting entity can more accurately determine whether to grant access to the quantum computing resource to the requesting entity 28. In such fashion, aspects of the present disclosure can substantially reduce performance inefficiencies associated with policy-based access provision; [0036] In some implementations, based on the quantum validation information 52, the access granting entity 20 can determine to grant quantum computing resource access to the access granting entity 20. For example, in some implementations, the access granting entity 20 can make an initial decision 46 to grant access to the requesting entity 28. The access granting entity 20 can then validate the initial decision 46 (e.g., via the access decision validator) based on the quantum validation information. Once the decision is validated, the access granting entity 20 can provide access credentials 62 to the requesting entity 28 for accessing the quantum computing resource. Alternatively, in some implementations, the access granting entity may defer a decision to grant access to the requesting entity 28, and then make the decision based on the quantum validation information 52.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Guo and Harrigan with the teachings of Griffin wherein, as between the computing resources of the defined group, the selected computing resource is best suited to execute the quantum computing workload. Guo and Harrigan teach of resource allocation and usage for quantum optimization problems/workloads. Similarly, Griffin teaches of resource allocation in a quantum environment. Griffin teaches of using validation information in order to make a decision to allocate resources or not. A resource is only allocated if it is appropriate for the environment, which indicates that it is best suited. If the resource causes the system issues, it will not be allocated. In some implementations, the access granting entity 20 may determine to deny or postpone quantum computing resource access to the requesting entity 28. For example, the access granting entity 20 may determine that granting access to the requesting entity 28 may cause a performance cost greater than a threshold cost. In response, the access granting entity 20 can send delayed access information 64 to the requesting entity 28, as discussed in Griffin ([0038]). Therefore, by ensuring that only resources that are best suited to execute the workload are allocated, the system can ensure that there are no negative effects.
39. Regarding claim 14, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN-AN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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, AIMEE LI can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/AN-AN NGOC NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195