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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to claims dated 12/8/2023.
Claims pending in the case: 1-14
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a state encoding unit for…”, “a quantum circuit unit for…”, “a measurement unit for …” in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Each of the units as per specification paragraph [32 and 38] are one or more hardware components controlled by software to perform the functions claimed and described in specification.
All claims dependent on the claims identified above are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3-7 and 10-14 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(s) 3 and 10 in the relevant part read: “updates the parameters of the base layer using an angle-pole optimization technique”. Based on the claim language, it is unclear what is being referred to by “angle-pole optimization technique”. It appears that this is a new term that the applicant has used and is not a well-known concept in the art. Since the specification does not provide a clear definition, the limitation has been found to be indefinite. As such, a person of reasonable skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the invention.
All claims dependent on this/these claim(s) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (Variational Quantum Circuits for Deep Reinforcement Learning – refer to attached) in view of Baughman (US 20230123240).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches, A quantum multi-agent meta reinforcement learning apparatus, which receives at least one observation value from different … environments (Chen: Fig. 5, Pg. 2 section II: reinforcement learning receiving observation states; Pg. 4 col 2 section A-B: RL for frozen lake problem and radio mapping problem), the apparatus comprising:
a state encoding unit for calculating an angle along each axis by encoding the at least one observation value, and converting the angle along each axis into a quantum state (Chen: Pg. 6 Fig. 5 description: qubit gates represent rotation along axis to get quantum state; Pg. 6 col 1: encode the state (map to quantum states) – angle encoding is one of the encoding techniques);
a quantum circuit unit for learning the angle along each axis, mapping the angle to a base layer, and overlapping the learned base layer using a controlled X (CX) gate (Chen: Pg. 6 Fig. 5 description: CNOT gates to entangled quantum state; learnable parameters); and
a measurement unit for learning the overlapped base layer and measuring an axis parameter (Chen: Pg. 6 Fig. 5 description: measuring and optimizing parameters);
Although, Chen does not specifically teach, observations from different single-hop offloading environments, The examiner finds that teachings in Chen reads on all the claimed functions and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the teachings for single-hop offloading environments. Thus the limitations are obvious over the teachings in Chen;
Chen also does not specifically recite, angle encoding. However this technique is well known in the art and would have been an obvious approach by one skilled in the art.
Nonetheless, Baughman teaches, angle encoding (Baughman: [37, 40]: encoding data may use angle encoding to use rotation information);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen and Baughman because the combination would enable angle encoding using the rotation information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination enables using a commonly known encoding technique of angle encoding in the quantum computing system.
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Baughman teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the quantum circuit unit updates parameters of the base layer through angle learning based on the angle along each axis converted into a quantum state, and the measurement unit updates the axis parameter through local axis learning based on the updated parameters of the base layer (Chen: Pg. 6 Fig. 5 description: use angle information for measuring and optimizing parameters) (Baughman: [37, 40]: encoding to use rotation information), and further performs continuous learning of initializing the axis parameter whenever the single-hop offloading environment changes and updating the axis parameter through the local axis learning for the changed single-hop offloading environment (Chen: Pg. 7, Algorithm 1: begin with initialize step).
Regarding Claim(s) 8-9, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1-2. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections using prior art
For claims 4-7 and 11-14, no prior art was found to teach or make obvious all the limitations with specifics of angle-pole optimization as claimed. The closest prior arts have been cited in the attached 892. Since the prior arts fail to disclose, suggest or teach all the claimed limitations, prior art rejection has not been presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm EST.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights