CTNF 18/355,181 CTNF 92539 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims broadly require pairwise difference units for all states, but the specification only describes differences between excited states, not the ground state, resulting in lack of written description support. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is 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. The claim recites pairwise difference units in a multi-state qudit discriminator. However, for qudits having two states (qubits), the claimed formula yields zero pairwise difference units, yet the claim still requires the classifier to rely on outputs of pairwise difference units. The scope is therefore unclear. Additionally, the phrase: “pairwise difference units couple the one-vs-one classifier indirectly with the weighted integration units” is vague because: • the inputs and outputs of the pairwise difference units are not defined • the term “indirectly” lacks structural meaning. Further, the claim defines the classifier by the result to be achieved (“configured to determine a state”) rather than by structure. The specification shows the classifier as threshold units + lookup table, indicating the claim is broader than the written description. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarathna et al. [Neural networks for on-the-fly single-shot state classification, September 2021] in view of Tholen et al. [Measurement and control of a superconducting quantum processor with a fully-integrated radio-frequency system on a chip, May 2022] . Claim 1 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna teaches “A discriminator, comprising:a signal interface configured to receive an input signal that is read out from at least one quantum qudit that comprises a number d of states; and” as “After the state preparation, we perform measurement by acquiring the probe signal transmitted through the readout resonator.” [Page 119] and “Here, we use N = 2(3) and states g), |e) (|g), e), f)) to calculate qubit (qutrit) assignment fidelity.” [Page 119] “a multi-state discriminator comprising: a number of weighted integration units, wherein the number of weighted integration units is equal to (d-1);” as “In order to determine the baseline readout fidelity, we first employed the conventional classification. Following this method, the heterodyne measurement signal was integrated in time, giving us one complex number I and Q.” [Page 119] and “Alternatively, one can apply a matched filter to the heterodyne measurement signal prior to integration in the conventional method. Matched filters are calibrated by taking the means of all acquired signals corresponding to each basis state. An incoming signal is convolved with these filters.” [Page 119] “a one-vs-one classifier that is coupled to the weighted integration units; and” as “the conventional method (time integration of readout signal and setting cassification thresholds).” [Page 120] and “The filter, which returns maximum average amplitude, determines the classified basis state.” [Page 119] “wherein the one-vs-one classifier is configured to determine a state of the quantum qudit based on an output of the weighted integration units and” as “the conventional method (time integration of readout signal and setting cassification thresholds).” [Page 120] and “The filter, which returns maximum average amplitude, determines the classified basis state.” [Page 119] Navarathna does not explicitly teach a number of pairwise difference units that couple the one-vs-one classifier indirectly with the weighted integration units, wherein the number of pairwise difference units is (d-1)*(d-2)/2, the pairwise difference units. However, Tholen teaches “a number of pairwise difference units that couple the one-vs-one classifier indirectly with the weighted integration units, wherein the number of pairwise difference units is (d-1)*(d-2)/2,” as [Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 5] “the pairwise difference units.” as [Fig. 5] Navarathna and Tholen are analogous arts because they teach quantum computing technology in general. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Navarathna and Tholen before him/her, to modify the teachings of Navarathna to include the teachings of Tholen with the motivation of simplifying and implementing comparison results directly from matched filter outputs is a routine design choice. Claim 2 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the weighted integration units are each configured to calculate a scalar product of a section of the input signal of a predetermined length and a complex weight vector of a predetermined length, wherein a dedicated weight vector is provided for each one of the weighted integration units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the weighted integration units are each configured to calculate a scalar product of a section of the input signal of a predetermined length and a complex weight vector of a predetermined length, wherein a dedicated weight vector is provided for each one of the weighted integration units.” as [Equation 1, page 5] Claim 3 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the one-vs-one classifier comprises:a number of threshold units, wherein the number of threshold units is d*(d-1)/2, and wherein for each one of the weighted integration units, one of the threshold units is coupled directly to a respective one of the weighted integration units, and wherein the pairwise difference units are arranged between the weighted integration units and the threshold units that are not directly coupled to the weighted integration units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the one-vs-one classifier comprises:a number of threshold units, wherein the number of threshold units is d*(d-1)/2, and wherein for each one of the weighted integration units, one of the threshold units is coupled directly to a respective one of the weighted integration units, and wherein the pairwise difference units are arranged between the weighted integration units and the threshold units that are not directly coupled to the weighted integration units.” as [Appendix C, page 11] Claim 4 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the one-vs-one classifier further comprises:an assignment look-up table that is coupled to outputs of the threshold units and that is configured to output the state of the quantum qudit based on the outputs of the threshold units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the one-vs-one classifier further comprises:an assignment look-up table that is coupled to outputs of the threshold units and that is configured to output the state of the quantum qudit based on the outputs of the threshold units.” as [Appendix C and Fig. 5] Claim 5 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein each one of the pairwise difference units comprises two inputs, wherein the two inputs of each one of the pairwise difference units are coupled to different ones of the weighted integration units, such that a difference is calculated for all possible permutations of outputs of the weighted integration units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein each one of the pairwise difference units comprises two inputs, wherein the two inputs of each one of the pairwise difference units are coupled to different ones of the weighted integration units, such that a difference is calculated for all possible permutations of outputs of the weighted integration units.” as [Fig. 5] Claim 6 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the input signal comprises phase- and time-dependent amplitude and frequency information. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the input signal comprises phase- and time-dependent amplitude and frequency information.” as “where a large number of superconducting microwave resonators on one transmission line are pumped at different frequencies while continuously monitoring changes in their response amplitude and phase.” [Page 3] Claim 7 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the input signal comprises multiple phase- and time-dependent amplitude and frequency information carrying signals that are frequency multiplexed. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the input signal comprises multiple phase- and time-dependent amplitude and frequency information carrying signals that are frequency multiplexed.” as “We show single-shot readout and active reset of a single qubit; randomized benchmarking of single-qubit gates showing 99.972% fidelity, limited by the coherence time of the qubit; and calibration of a two-qubit iSWAP gate.” [Page 1] Claim 8 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach a discriminator according to claim 1 for each one of a plurality of qudits that are to be discriminated. However, Tholen teaches “a discriminator according to claim 1 for each one of a plurality of qudits that are to be discriminated.” as “The current architecture of superconducting quantum processors favours frequency-multiplexed qubit readout, but individual microwave lines are required to control the qubits.” [Page 2] Claim 9 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the multi-qudit multi-state discriminator is configured in a programmable logic device that comprises a predetermined number N of weighted integration units, wherein the multi-qudit multi-state discriminator is configured to discriminate any combination of M qubits, K qutrits, and L ququads, wherein M + 2*K + 3*L is lower than or equal to N. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the multi-qudit multi-state discriminator is configured in a programmable logic device that comprises a predetermined number N of weighted integration units, wherein the multi-qudit multi-state discriminator is configured to discriminate any combination of M qubits, K qutrits, and L ququads, wherein M + 2*K + 3*L is lower than or equal to N.” as “a radio-frequency system on a chip integrating RF data converters, many cores of central-processing units (CPU) and a large field-programmable gate array (FPGA), all on a single silicon chip'. Evaluation modules of the first generation of RFSoC chips have been used to demonstrate their applicability to quantum computation⁸ FPGA devices have been used quite extensively in scientific experiments¹³ and there are many examples of their use for readout and control of superconducting qubits¹⁴⁻¹⁷.” [Page 1] Claim 11 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the one-vs-one classifier in each of the discriminators comprises:a number of threshold units, wherein the number of threshold units is d*(d- 1)/2, and wherein for each one of the weighted integration units one of the threshold units is coupled directly to a respective one of the weighted integration units, and wherein the pairwise difference units are arranged between the weighted integration units and the threshold units that are not directly coupled to the weighted integration units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the one-vs-one classifier in each of the discriminators comprises:a number of threshold units, wherein the number of threshold units is d*(d- 1)/2, and wherein for each one of the weighted integration units one of the threshold units is coupled directly to a respective one of the weighted integration units, and wherein the pairwise difference units are arranged between the weighted integration units and the threshold units that are not directly coupled to the weighted integration units.” as [Equation 1, page 5] Claim 12 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the one-vs-one classifier in each of the discriminators further comprises: an assignment look-up table that is coupled to outputs of the threshold units and that is configured to output the state of the quantum qudit based on the outputs of the threshold units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the one-vs-one classifier in each of the discriminators further comprises:an assignment look-up table that is coupled to outputs of the threshold units and that is configured to output the state of the quantum qudit based on the outputs of the threshold units.” as “The feedback system does pairwise addition on template matching outputs, comparing the result to a threshold. The Boolean results of the comparisons are subjected to a logical operator to create a mask that gates output templates.” [Page 5] Claim 13 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein each one of the pairwise difference units in each of the discriminators comprises two inputs, wherein the two inputs of each one of the pairwise difference units are coupled to different ones of the weighted integration units, such that a difference is calculated for all possible permutations of outputs of the weighted integration units. However, Tholen teaches “wherein each one of the pairwise difference units in each of the discriminators comprises two inputs, wherein the two inputs of each one of the pairwise difference units are coupled to different ones of the weighted integration units, such that a difference is calculated for all possible permutations of outputs of the weighted integration units.” as [Fig. 5] Claim 14 is rejected over Navarathna and Tholen. Navarathna does not explicitly teach wherein the input signal for each of the discriminators comprises phase- and time-dependent amplitude and frequency information. However, Tholen teaches “wherein the input signal for each of the discriminators comprises phase- and time-dependent amplitude and frequency information.” as “where a large number of superconducting microwave resonators on one transmission line are pumped at different frequencies while continuously monitoring changes in their response amplitude and phase.” [Page 3] Claims 15-20 are rejected over Navarathna and Tholen for the reasons analogous to claims 1-14 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ogino et al. [US 2020/0175675 A1] teaches determine weights during integration of results obtained by discriminators. Tate [US 2019/0050681 A1] teaches attribute integration unit. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD K KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8am-5pm). 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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. /MASUD K KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 2 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 3 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 4 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 5 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 6 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 7 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 8 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 9 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/355,181 Page 10 Art Unit: 2132