DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 14 July 2023, claiming benefit back to 14 July 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference numbers mentioned in the description: In respect to Figure 2, paragraphs [00035]-[00037] make reference to reference numbers 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, and 250, however Figure 2 lacks any of the referenced numbers 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.
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 11 – 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "by the one or more processors" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12 – 18 are rejected as being dependent from claim 11, and having the same deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b).
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of a method for operating a quantum computing system (QCS), the method comprising:
accessing an error model for the QCS, wherein the error model encodes a set of error channels and a relation to detector outcomes;
accessing a set of measured detector outcomes;
generating a tensor network that encodes correlations between the quantum error modes of the set of quantum error modes and the set of measured detector outcomes; and
generating a matrix product state (MPS) protocol based on the tensor network.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, organizing information / manipulating information through mathematical correlations, and such encompass mathematical concepts1. The generation of a tensor network and the generating of a matrix product state are mathematical algorithms performed on collected data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I2.
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the additional limitations of accessing an error model for the QCS, wherein the error model encodes a set of error channels and a relation to detector outcomes and accessing a set of measured detector outcomes, however these are recited at a high level of generality, with no limitations placed on how the data is accessed, and as such they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Independent claim 11 recites additional limitations of one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause performance of operations and independent claim 19 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions for operating a quantum computing system (QCS), and when the instructions are executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, however these are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
[It is also noted that there is no actual operation of any quantum computing system in the body of the claims; they merely recite the collection of data regarding the performance of said].
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to exemplary dependent claims 2 – 10:
Claims 2 and 3 merely recite post solution activity of deploying the protocol;
Claims 4 – 9 merely further describe the generating of the MPS step, which is also an abstract idea;
Claim 10 recites additional steps which encompass judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts and mental processes (i.e., generating a circuit diagram), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry3 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0050]-[0061], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation4.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, and if claims 11 – 18 were additionally rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record includes Oscar Higgot et al. (Applicant IDS dated 16 July 2024), Bravyi Sergey et al. (Applicant IDS dated 16 July 2024), Farrelly, Terry, et al. "Tensor-network codes." Physical Review Letters 127.4 (2021): 040507, Ferris, Andrew J., and David Poulin. "Tensor networks and quantum error correction." arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4578 (2013), Gschwendtner, Martina, et al. "Quantum error-detection at low energies." Journal of High Energy Physics 2019.9 (2019): 21, and Sarkar, Soumya. “Tensor Network And Quantum Error Correcting Codes Thesis”. Diss. National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, 2021.
However, with respect to exemplary independent claim 1, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Cong; Iris et al. US 20210383189 A1 Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks
Flammia; Steven T. US 11334693 B1 Systems and methods for optimizing quantum computers
BAKER; Thomas E. et al. US 20230040584 A1 Computer-Implemented Method Of Solving A Hamiltonian
Anschuetz; Eric R. et al. US 11605015 B2 Hybrid quantum-classical computer system for implementing and optimizing quantum Boltzmann machines
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 See included Wikipedia articles on Matrix Product States, Tensor Networks, and Tensor Contraction (as retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20210223062618/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_product_state; https://web.archive.org/web/20220522175026/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_network;
https://web.archive.org/web/20211206093605/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_contraction).
2 See, e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A iv: Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721; and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.
3 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
4 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).