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 action is response to the communication filed on December 28, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites, a plurality of quantum parallel processing units configured to execute a set of quantum instructions of a quantum application program; and an adaptive quantum instruction scheduler configured to dynamically distribute the set of quantum instructions to the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon a measured probability of a desired result of executing the set of quantum instructions of the quantum application program and a decoherence time of a qubit. Further claim 11 recites, a macro-scheduler comprising macro-scheduling logic configured to distribute a set of quantum instructions of a quantum application program for execution by at least a first quantum parallel processing unit and a second quantum parallel processing unit of a plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon a comparison of a measured probability of a desired result of executing the set of quantum instructions to a threshold probability; and a micro-scheduler comprising micro-scheduling logic configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for execution by at least the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon a first decoherence time of a first qubit in the first quantum parallel processing unit and a second decoherence time of a second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit.
All of the limitation as recited in claim 1 and 11 can be interpreted as additional element. However, these limitations can be done with a generic computer component which is insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the plurality of quantum parallel processing units is part of a graphics processing unit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of a teleportation unit configured to teleport a first quantum state of a first qubit in a first quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units to a second qubit in a second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units, wherein the decoherence time is a first decoherence time and the qubit is the first qubit, wherein the teleportation unit is configured to teleport the first quantum state of the first qubit to the second qubit at or before expiration of the first decoherence time of the first qubit, and wherein the teleportation unit is configured to teleport a second quantum state of the second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units at or before expiration of a second decoherence time of the second qubit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the adaptive quantum instruction scheduler comprises a micro-scheduler that includes micro-scheduling logic configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for execution by at least the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon the first decoherence time of the first qubit in the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second decoherence time of the second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the adaptive quantum instruction scheduler further comprises a macro-scheduler that includes macro-scheduling logic configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for execution by at least the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon a comparison of the measured probability to a threshold probability, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of in response to the measured probability being below the threshold probability, the macro-scheduling logic is configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions to the first quantum parallel processing unit to be executed as part of a first set of Grover iterations and to the second quantum parallel processing unit to be executed as part of a second set of Grover iterations, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of the first set of Grover iterations is executed by the first quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units, the teleportation unit is configured to teleport the first quantum state of the first qubit in the first quantum parallel processing unit to the second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit, causing the second quantum parallel processing unit to execute the second set of Grover iterations, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of the second set of Grover iterations is executed by the second quantum parallel processing unit, the macro-scheduler is configured to compare a second measured probability to the threshold probability, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of in response to the second measured probability being greater than or equal to the threshold probability, the macro-scheduler is configured to stop distributing the set of quantum instructions, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of adaptive quantum instruction scheduler for quantum parallel processing. The claim recites the limitations of in response to the second measured probability being less than the threshold probability, the macro-scheduler is configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for a selection of Grover iterations to four quantum parallel processing units of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 12-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-11 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-11 above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fong et al. (Pub. No. : US 20230222372 A1) in the view of Zou et al. (Pub. No. : US 20210182724 A1)
As to claim 1 Fong teaches a quantum computing device comprising:
a plurality of quantum parallel processing units configured to execute a set of quantum instructions of a quantum application program (Paragraph [0033]: multiple quantum processing units for parallel execution); and
an adaptive quantum instruction scheduler configured to dynamically distribute the set of quantum instructions to the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon a measured probability of a desired result of executing the set of quantum instructions of the quantum application program (paragraphs [0033], [0047]: dynamically selecting multiple quantum processing units for parallel execution, wherein the hybrid system 402 may determine scheduling for each of the quantum circuits 410 included in the quantum job 408).
Fong does not explicitly disclose but Zou teaches a decoherence time of a qubit (Paragraph [0095]: Decoherence, for example, may be identified by repeated errors related to the state of a particular qubit or a particular combination of qubits). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fong by adding limitation as taught by Zou to improve the inter-module communication efficiency (Zou, paragraph [0109]).
As to claim 2 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 1. Fong teaches wherein the plurality of quantum parallel processing units is part of a graphics processing unit (paragraph [0036]).
As to claim 3 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 1. Fong teaches a teleportation unit configured to teleport a first quantum state of a first qubit in a first quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units to a second qubit in a second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units, wherein the decoherence time is a first decoherence time and the qubit is the first qubit, wherein the teleportation unit is configured to teleport the first quantum state of the first qubit to the second qubit at or before expiration of the first decoherence time of the first qubit, and wherein the teleportation unit is configured to teleport a second quantum state of the second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units at or before expiration of a second decoherence time of the second qubit (paragraphs[0038]-[0040], [0087]).
As to claim 4 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 3. Zou teaches wherein the adaptive quantum instruction scheduler comprises a micro-scheduler that includes micro-scheduling logic configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for execution by at least the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon the first decoherence time of the first qubit in the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second decoherence time of the second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit (paragraphs [0037]-[0039], [0095], [0152], [0155]).
As to claim 5 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 4. Zou teaches wherein the adaptive quantum instruction scheduler further comprises a macro-scheduler that includes macro-scheduling logic configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for execution by at least the first quantum parallel processing unit and the second quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units based, at least in part, upon a comparison of the measured probability to a threshold probability ([0031], [0049]-[0051], [0061]).
As to claim 6 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 5. Fong teaches wherein, in response to the measured probability being below the threshold probability, the macro-scheduling logic is configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions to the first quantum parallel processing unit to be executed as part of a first set of Grover iterations and to the second quantum parallel processing unit to be executed as part of a second set of Grover iterations (paragraph [0014], [0020]).
As to claim 7 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 6. Fong teaches wherein, after the first set of Grover iterations is executed by the first quantum parallel processing unit of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units, the teleportation unit is configured to teleport the first quantum state of the first qubit in the first quantum parallel processing unit to the second qubit in the second quantum parallel processing unit, causing the second quantum parallel processing unit to execute the second set of Grover iterations (paragraph [0014], [0019]-[0020]).
As to claim 8 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 7. Fong teaches wherein, after the second set of Grover iterations is executed by the second quantum parallel processing unit, the macro-scheduler is configured to compare a second measured probability to the threshold probability (paragraph [0065]).
As to claim 9 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 8. Fong teaches wherein, in response to the second measured probability being greater than or equal to the threshold probability, the macro-scheduler is configured to stop distributing the set of quantum instructions (paragraph [0072]).
As to claim 10 Fong together with Zou teaches a quantum computing device of claim 8. Fong teaches wherein, in response to the second measured probability being less than the threshold probability, the macro-scheduler is configured to distribute the set of quantum instructions for a selection of Grover iterations to four quantum parallel processing units of the plurality of quantum parallel processing units (paragraph [0043]).
As to claims 11-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-11 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-11 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights