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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on 09/22/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claim interpretations of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), limitation stating “minimizing…using an optimization device” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretations for the limitation stating “minimizing…using an optimization device” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been withdrawn. However, the remaining 112(f) interpretations have not been addressed and therefore maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that no reference teaches the limitations stating “simulating a quantum algorithm”, since the cited portions state “that quantum computing itself may be useful for simulating quantum systems”, and “simulating of the transverse intensity profile of single mode propagation in a waveguide”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Due to the broadness of the claim language, Morgado has been found to teach the argued limitations, since section 3.2 and Fig. 1 teach “we apply a (two-dimensional) CNN encoder to the audio spectrogram” to output “feature maps” (audio object) of “high-level features” (audio element) in “25ms segments” (time period) and reduced dimensionality of the audio (spatial position).
Further, Morgado_2020 was cited in alternative and is maintained as teaching since sections 3.2-3.3 teach a transformer network processing features from audio and video clips to output a image/audio representations (objects) of a specific clip time, image/audio feature (element), image feature viewing angle (spatial positioning) and audio feature listening angle (spatial positioning).
Applicant is encouraged to add clarifying amendments regarding the “audio object” so it cannot be read as broadly.
See 35 U.S.C 103 section for full mapping of claim limitations necessitated by applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that no reference teaches the amended limitations stating “manipulating, using a polarization manipulation device, a polarization of the electromagnetic waves to correspond to the polarization state representation”, since “O'Brien merely discloses that a polarization can be rotated, not manipulating the polarization to correspond to the polarization state representation mapped from the quantum state representation”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Due to the broadness of the claim language, O'Brien has been found to teach the argued limitations, since Figs 1B-C teach “b An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere (correspond to the polarization state representation). c A half wave plate ([lambda]/2) can be used to rotate this polarization (manipulating…a polarization of the electromagnetic waves)”. Further, section “Secure communication with photons” teaches “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedom-polarization, path, time-bin etc. Manipulation at the single photon level is usually straightforward-using birefringent waveplates in the case of polarization for example (Fig. 1)” on a processor.
Applicant is encouraged to add clarifying amendments regarding the “manipulating” so it cannot be read as broadly.
See 35 U.S.C 103 section for full mapping of claim limitations necessitated by applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues at a high level that no reference teaches the amended limitations stating “optimizing a configuration of the polarization manipulation device to minimize a cost function using an optimization device”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Due to the broadness of the claim language, Radin has been found to teach the argued limitations, since paragraphs 0065 teach “The result of running the quantum circuit is measured. The classical computer (optimization device/a data interpretation device) then calculates the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function (optimal clustering solution). The optimizer routine is run iteratively to minimize the cost function in each iteration until predetermined convergence value is reached (interpreting)”; wherein the cost function includes an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (clustering)”.
See 35 U.S.C 103 section for full mapping of claim limitations necessitated by applicant amendments.
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:
“manipulating…using a polarization manipulation device” and “interpreting…using a data interpretation device” of claims 1 and analogous 8
“a detection module for measuring” and “a data input device for inputting” of claim 8
“the data input device for inputting” of claim 13
“data interpretation device interprets” of claim 14
“a measurement module configured to measure” of claim 15
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.
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.
Further, the limitations of “module[s]” for the above corresponding operations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, however, applicant’s paragraphs 0030 and 0035-0037 recite sufficient structure stating “devices, systems, or methods described in accordance with the teachings herein may be implemented as a combination of hardware and software…device having a processor”, and “program code…may comprise modules”, thus modules can be interpreted as software executed on hardware.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al (“Photonic quantum technologies”, 2010) hereinafter O’Brien, in view of Radin et al (US Pub 20220284337) hereinafter Radin.
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien teaches a method for simulating a quantum algorithm (abstract teaches "Photonics is destined for a central role in such technologies owing to the need for high-speed transmission and the outstanding low-noise properties of photons. These technologies may use single photons or quantum states of bright laser beams, or both, and will undoubtably apply and drive state-of-the-art developments in photonics.” Further page 1 teaches "Perhaps the most profound (and distant) anticipated future technology is a quantum computer that promises exponentially faster operation for particular task, including factoring, database searches, and simulating important quantum systems"), comprising:
providing a light source for emitting electromagnetic waves (abstract teaches "These technologies may use single photons or quantum states of bright laser beams"; further sections “Quantum technologies with bright laser beams” and “Photonics for Quantum Technologies teach “a bright laser beam” as a laser light);
mapping a quantum state representation to a polarization state representation (Figs. 1A-B teach “A qubit can be encoded as the polarization of a single photon. b An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere.” Further, section “Secure communication with photons” teaches “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedompolarization, path, time-bin etc.”);
manipulating, using a polarization manipulation device, a polarization of the electromagnetic waves to correspond to the polarization state representation; (Figs 1B-C teach “b An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere (correspond to the polarization state representation). c A half wave plate ([lambda]/2) can be used to rotate this polarization (manipulating…a polarization of the electromagnetic waves)”. Further, section “Secure communication with photons” teaches “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedom-polarization, path, time-bin etc. Manipulation at the single photon level is usually straightforward-using birefringent waveplates in the case of polarization for example (Fig. 1)” on a processor);
inputting data through a data input device (sections “Generalized quantum teleportation” and “Semiconductor-based single photon sources” teaches input source providing laser beam data);
However, O’Brien does not explicitly teach optimizing a configuration of the polarization manipulation device to minimize a cost function using an optimization device, thereby producing an optimal clustering solution; and interpreting the optimal clustering solution using a data interpretation device.
Radin teaches optimizing a configuration of the polarization manipulation device to minimize a cost function using an optimization device, thereby producing an optimal clustering solution; and interpreting the optimal clustering solution using a data interpretation device (paragraphs 0065 teach “The result of running the quantum circuit is measured. The classical computer (optimization device/a data interpretation device) then calculates the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function (optimal clustering solution). The optimizer routine is run iteratively to minimize the cost function in each iteration until predetermined convergence value is reached (interpreting)”; wherein the cost function includes an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (clustering)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Radin’s teachings of a computer for quantum cost function minimization and threshold comparison into O’Brien‘s teaching of laser beam data quantum state polarization determination in order to tune parameters for increasing model accuracy (Radin, paragraphs 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 above; and further teach wherein the electromagnetic waves are laser beams (O’Brien, section “Quantum technologies with bright laser beams” teaches the light used is of a “bright laser beam”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 above; and further teach wherein the quantum state representation is a Bloch sphere (O’Brien, section “Secure communication with photons” and Fig. 1B teach “An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere”, and “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedom-polarization”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 3 above; and further teach wherein the polarization state representation is a Poincare sphere (O’Brien, section “Secure communication with photons” and Fig. 1B teach “An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere”, and “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedom-polarization”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 above; and further teach wherein the polarization manipulation device comprises a plurality of plates and polarizers (O’Brien, section “Secure communication with photons” teach "Manipulation at the single photon level is usually straightforward-using birefringent waveplates in the case of polarization for example "; further Figs. 1C-D and 2D teach “half wave plate can be used to rotate this polarization.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 above; and further teach wherein the cost function is a clustering cost function (Radin, paragraphs 0065 teach calculating “the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function” including an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (clustering cost function)”).
O’Brien and Radin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 above; and further teach wherein the data is a set that is to be clustered (Radin, paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0065 teach input data ansatz “state preparation” including “coupled-cluster methods”).
O’Brien and Radin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, O’Brien teaches a system for simulating a quantum algorithm (abstract teaches "Photonics is destined for a central role in such technologies owing to the need for high-speed transmission and the outstanding low-noise properties of photons. These technologies may use single photons or quantum states of bright laser beams, or both, and will undoubtably apply and drive state-of-the-art developments in photonics.” Further page 1 teaches "Perhaps the most profound (and distant) anticipated future technology is a quantum computer that promises exponentially faster operation for particular task, including factoring, database searches, and simulating important quantum systems"), comprising:
a light source for emitting electromagnetic waves (abstract teaches "These technologies may use single photons or quantum states of bright laser beams"; further sections “Quantum technologies with bright laser beams” and “Photonics for Quantum Technologies teach “a bright laser beam” as a laser light);
a polarization manipulation device for manipulating a polarization of the electromagnetic waves (Figs. 1A-B teach “A qubit can be encoded as the polarization of a single photon. b An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere.” Further, section “Secure communication with photons” teaches “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedompolarization, path, time-bin etc.”);
a detection module for measuring a polarization of the electromagnetic waves to correspond to a polarization state representation, the polarization state representation mapped from a quantum state representation (Figs 1B-C teach “b An arbitrary state of a qubit can be represented on the Poincaree or Bloch sphere (correspond to the polarization state representation). c A half wave plate ([lambda]/2) can be used to rotate this polarization (manipulating…a polarization of the electromagnetic waves)”. Further, section “Secure communication with photons” teaches “A quantum bit (or qubit) of information can be encoded in any of several degrees of freedom-polarization, path, time-bin etc. Manipulation at the single photon level is usually straightforward-using birefringent waveplates in the case of polarization for example (Fig. 1)” on a processor);
However, O’Brien does not explicitly teach an optimization device for optimizing a configuration of the polarization manipulation device to minimize a cost function, thereby producing an optimal clustering solution; and a data interpretation device for interpreting the optimal clustering solution.
Radin teaches an optimization device for optimizing a configuration of the polarization manipulation device to minimize a cost function, thereby producing an optimal clustering solution; a data input device for inputting the cost function; and a data interpretation device for interpreting the optimal clustering solution (paragraphs 0065 teach “The quantum circuit is run using the initial parameters (data). The result of running the quantum circuit is measured (data). The classical computer (optimization device/a data input device/a data interpretation device) then calculates the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function (optimal clustering solution). The optimizer routine is run iteratively to minimize the cost function in each iteration until predetermined convergence value is reached (interpreting)”; wherein the cost function includes an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (clustering)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Radin’s teachings of a computer for quantum cost function minimization and threshold comparison into O’Brien‘s teaching of laser beam data quantum state polarization determination in order to tune parameters for increasing model accuracy (Radin, paragraphs 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 8 above; and further teach wherein the light source is a laser beam (O’Brien, section “Quantum technologies with bright laser beams” teaches the light used is of a “bright laser beam”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 8 above; and further teach wherein the polarization manipulation device comprises plates and polarizers (O’Brien, section “Secure communication with photons” teach "Manipulation at the single photon level is usually straightforward-using birefringent waveplates in the case of polarization for example "; further Figs. 1C-D and 2D teach “half wave plate can be used to rotate this polarization.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 8 above; and further teach wherein the optimization device is a classical optimizer (Radin, paragraphs 0065 teach “The classical computer (optimization device) then calculates the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function.”).
O’Brien and Radin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 8 above; and further teach wherein the cost function is a clustering cost function (Radin, paragraphs 0065 teach calculating “the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function” including an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (clustering cost function)”).
O’Brien and Radin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 8 above; and further teach wherein the data input device inputs the cost function depending on a data set that is to be clustered (Radin, paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0065 teach input data ansatz “state preparation” including “coupled-cluster methods” (that is to be clustered), and “The quantum circuit is run using the initial parameters (depending on a data set). The result of running the quantum circuit is measured (depending on a data set). The classical computer (data input device) then calculates the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters (depending on a data set) using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function (optimal clustering solution). The optimizer routine is run iteratively to minimize the cost function in each iteration until predetermined convergence value is reached”; wherein the cost function includes an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (that is to be clustered)”).
O’Brien and Radin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 13 above; and further teach wherein the data interpretation device interprets the optimal clustering solution in terms of the data set that is to be clustered (Radin, paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0065 teach input data ansatz “state preparation” including “coupled-cluster methods” (that is to be clustered), and “The quantum circuit is run using the initial parameters (in terms of the data set). The result of running the quantum circuit is measured. The classical computer (data interpretation device) then calculates the cost function and updates the set of initial parameters (in terms of the data set) using a classical optimizer routine to minimize the cost function (optimal clustering solution). The optimizer routine is run iteratively to minimize the cost function in each iteration until predetermined convergence value is reached (interpreting)”; wherein the cost function includes an optimization routine of a “unitary coupled cluster ansatz (UCC) (that is to be clustered)”).
O’Brien and Radin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of O’Brien and Radin teach all the claim limitations of claim 8 above; and further teach wherein the detection module further comprises a measurement module configured to measure the polarization of the electromagnetic waves (O’Brien, section “Quantum information processing” teaches “The requirements for realizing a quantum computer are confounding: scalable physical qubitstwo state quantum systems-that can be well isolated from the environment, but also initialised, measured”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT MULLINAX whose telephone number is 571-272-3241. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30 PT.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached on 571-270-3428. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2123
/ALEXEY SHMATOV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2123
