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
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received on 9/4/2024. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are pending examination.
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the exception itself. Specifically, the claims are directed to mathematical concepts. And data processing using quantum computing, which constitutes abstract ideas under the guidance in MPEP § 2016 and the USPTO’s 2019 revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 1: the claims are directed to a process (claims 1-7 and 9-10) and machine/system (claims 11-14), which are statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claims recite an abstract, specifically an abstract idea in the form of mathematical concepts, which are identified in the 2019 PEG as a recognized category of abstract idea. Claim 1 recites, constructing a Hamiltonian based on the variable string; encoding the variable string into an adjustable quantum state by a parametrized quantum circuit comprising a plurality of qubits; wherein the parametrized quantum circuit is part of the quantum processor, generating in a hash function generator in the classical central processing unit a hash value from the fixed string and the output of the quantum circuit; comparing the generated hash value with a true hash value in a comparator; determining in the classical central processing unit, an overlap between the generated hash value and a true hash value; and on reaching a zero overlap value, determining the variable string, otherwise optimising in the classical central processing unit parameters of the quantum circuit, further comprising measuring a superposition of the variable string by a measurement device, wherein the measuring is implemented by a quantum state tomography individually for the plurality of the qubits. These elements involve mathematical modeling, encoding data, generating and comparing hash values and optimization routines. These steps are fundamental mathematical and algorithmic operations, which fall within the scope of abstract ideas. The additional claims (claims 2-3, optimization using gradient descent; claims 5-6 constructing graphs, claim 7 Hamming distances, father emphasize mathematical processing without meaningful technological distinction. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The claims recite quantum computing elements such as quantum circuit, qubits, tomography and measurement devices, these elements are used generically as tools to perform the mathematical operations. There is no indication of improvement in the functioning of the computer or any technology or technical field. The use of quantum components appears to be conventional and routine to implement abstract data processing operations in a quantum computing environment. Therefore, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B, the claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The elements when viewed individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recited quantum components (quantum circuits, tomography, qubits are used in their well understood, routine and conventional capacity to implements the abstract mathematical steps. There is no recitation of how these elements are technologically improved, nor any unconventional arrangement or novel functionality that transforms the claim into patent eligible. Instead, the claims merely apply known computational processes such as hashing, optimization and measurement, in a quantum computing setting, without any particular inventive configuration. In conclusion the claims are directed to abstract idea and fail to provide an inventive concept or integrate the idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims are not a mental process because they require a quantum processor and therefore cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Response: the rejection does not rely on the mental process category of abstract ideas, instead, the claims are considered to recite mathematical concepts, which are also a category of abstract ideas under the USPTO eligibility guidance. The claimed steps include operation such as: constructing a Hamiltonian, generating a hash value, comparing hash values, determining overlap or Hamiltonian distance and optimizing parameters. These steps represent mathematical calculations and optimization techniques used to determine a variable string that produces a target hash value. Even though the claims recite a quantum processor and qubits, these aliments are used only as tools to perform the mathematical operation. The claims do not describe an improvement to the operation of the quantum processor, qubits or quantum circuit structure itself. Therefore, the claims are still considered to be directed to mathematical concepts, which are a type of abstract idea.
The applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they involve a hybrid classical quantum system and cites Ex Parte Yudong Cao.
Response. IN the present claims, the quantum processor, qubits, comparator and measurement deice are used only to perform the mathematical optimization process described above. The claims do not recite any improvement to quantum computing technology such as: improved quantum circuit structure, improved qubit control or stability, improved measurement techniques, or improved quantum hardware functionality. The claims simply apply mathematical optimization using conventional computing components, including a classical processor, and a quantum processor. The cited decision in Ex Parte Yudong involved claims where the Board found that the claimed invention provided specific technological improvement in the quantum computing techniques. In contrast, the present claims simply use known quantum computing components to carry out a mathematical search process. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights